But I'd say the review process overall for sure helped us sort of develop all these things further.

Yeah.

And I think I would chime in on that.

Like, um, I forget how, how Stefan characterized what happened to our paper at Marketing Science.

But my recollection is that it was actually a reject and resubmit, and, um, the editor basically gave us the opportunity.

They sort of said, "Here's this other complete..." What we saw as a very different direction that we could take our paper in, and if we wanted to, like, write a whole new paper that talked about soda taxes but from a very different angle, then we would have the opportunity to resubmit.

And I think Stefan, Song and I talked and we said, "You know, we, we really think our paper is still making a contribution on this topic, and we think we have a nice paper." But I think, you know, the learning from this, and we were writing this paper when I was still in my like second, third, fourth year as faculty, was the onus was on us to more clearly articulate what the contribution was of our paper relative to the other soda tax papers that were cropping up.

So I'm curious if you guys have thoughts on that now, especially now that the paper has had this impact and you've also, you know, moved a- along your careers a little bit more too.