I know I threw a lot at you there.

Yes.

I mean, with regard to the desk rejects, our goal is to only desk reject the papers where either as co-editors we think that the research question that's asked is just not of major interest to our readers or ones that have methodological or data flaws that are so large that we just cannot foresee the paper going through.

If the paper is at all plausibly of interest to our readers, we will try to send that out to the review team and let the market decide kind of what's important or not important.

I think what's more important is kind of what is going to happen and how are we going to try to get papers that get a revision request to the second round and get them a minor revision in the second round.

And the first thing I want to emphasize, just because some people at some times have used language such as that there's a promise being made, there's no promise being made here, authors are responsible for getting a paper in such good shape that it can be at a minor revision within one round.

What we're going to do, however, is we're going to give the authors the tools that they need to be set up for success to be able to get the paper to a minor revision within one round.

Is there anything else that you're thinking, either from the author perspective that authors should be doing or thinking about, or that you'll take on kind of as co-editors, editors, to manage that process better, to get more of these cross-area submissions and hopefully turn them into publications?