PSTR-D-24-00224

Doing conferences differently: decentralising for ecological and social sustainability.

PLOS Sustainability and Transformation

Dear Dr. Corneyllie,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS Sustainability and Transformation. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS Sustainability and Transformation's publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript within 60 days Mar 10 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at SustainTransform@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pstr/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

* A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. This file does not need to include responses to any formatting updates and technical items listed in the 'Journal Requirements' section below.

* A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

* An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, competing interests statement, or data availability statement, please make these updates within the submission form at the time of resubmission. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Jose Carlos Báez, Ph.D.

Section Editor

PLOS Sustainability and Transformation

Jose Báez

Section Editor

PLOS Sustainability and Transformation

Unai Pascual

Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Sustainability and Transformation

Journal Requirements:

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' Comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Does this manuscript meet PLOS Sustainability and Transformation’s publication criteria?>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?-->?>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available (please refer to the Data Availability Statement at the start of the manuscript PDF file)??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: I very much enjoyed reading this paper. The CuttingEEG team is world-leading in exploring the practicalities of distributed conferencing, and this well-written piece fills an important gap in the literature (and in our current practice).

I have no major issues with this work, and I am very happy to see it published. Next to my congratulations to the authors, I will simply offer suggestions for them - both for this manuscript, and for the Gardens in the future.

Very minor suggestions as I read through the piece, which may help to further clarify the well-written manuscript.

- the phrase 'think pieces' sounds a bit derogatory to me, perhaps because of the quotation marks. The Kloewer paper has real analyses, so I would consider another term (opinion pieces)?

- "air travel nevertheless remains the largest cause of researchers’ carbon emissions" -> I think this is often the case, but perhaps not always, especially for fields that use high-energy equipment that may even outweigh aviation CO2. A French researcher told me that they did carbon accounting and that their MEG helium had far higher CO2 cost than travel. you could soften this phrase.

- I was a bit surprised with the focus on collectivist cultures for the benefits of in-person interaction; do you not think that in-person social interaction for breaking the ice is universal (I certainly experience it as someone from a Western European country)? I would consider leaving this out, or softening the statement.

- I feel like we need a term for the 'home alone virtual conference' where no social interaction is provided for those not at the central location - as too often, 'hybrid' is simply taken to mean 'provide a livestream' and it's left at that. Perhaps the authors want to propose nomenclature to distinguish between different types of hybrid meetings?

- Related to nomenclature, some may find 'hub' a bit confusing as it may naturally be associated with 'hub and spokes', where the hub is the central location and the spokes are the decentralized attachments. There is also meetups, hublets, pods, gardens... perhaps a short glossary would be helpful here for the field at large. I think you could be more clear in distinguishing a top-down organized hub (as proposed by Kloewer) from self-organized gardens (as was done with Neuromatch).

- Can you give examples/links of hub conferences that have reverted back after Covid?

- How were local hosts recruited? Any difficulties in getting a global representation?

- What kind of software was used for streaming talks and collecting questions from the different hubs?

- 'attendees mixed with employees in their communal spaces' -> what do you mean here with employees? colleagues from the same university who were not attending the conference? or support staff?

- "We used a random resampling method (bootstrap with 1000 resampling iterations) to estimate the transportation emissions of all attendees." -> What was resampled? Was this a bootstrap estimate to do statistics or a way to fill in the missing data (I think the latter, to account for those attendees who didn't fill out the survey? The statistics description was not super clear to me.

- There is a big assumption, namely that the exact same people would come to the local hublet vs. a central location (which is probably not true, given all the constraints on inclusion you've identified). How may this bias your CO2 estimates?

- "inductive approach was taken to the analysis" -> what is an inductive approach in this case? A definition would help.

- You could consider showing Figure 2 with a complementary map, with the colorbar indicating the total emissions of each location.

- For fully virtual, you do not include food that people would eat at home or in their office, so perhaps you are overestimating the difference between gardens and fully virtual.

- A personal reflection is that beyond interacting with colleagues, a garden is also better than a virtual conference for happening at a fixed time: so it is a block in your calendar, rather than an item on your todo list that you could potentially watch anytime (available together with the rest of the whole internet and initiatives like worldwideneuro). It's easier to make the time if you know the event is time-specific. You could highlight this, if you like.

- Any data on attendee by career stage? Is there a risk that garden-like conferences attract mostly early-career scholars or those who would otherwise not attend regular meetings (with the 'usual crowd' of already-well established and rich labs all flying to a centralized meeting)? Basically, how does this kind of meeting become attractive for everyone, rather than becoming a second-tier option next to e.g. SfN?

- I would love to hear a bit of reflection of the authors in scaling this up; if we want to truly decarbonize scientific meetings, ultimately massive conferences like SfN should start changing their behavior (which so far they have shown no sign of doing, despite repeated petitions and letters). Perhaps medium-sized conferences like CCN, OHBM are in a better space to experiment, but how do we get these practices mainstreamed (especially given the financial structural inertia of these bigger organisations)?

- Similarly, were there any financial issues in getting sufficient funding for the central team? How were registration rates for the local hubs set?

And some other suggestions for the authors, going a bit beyond this piece but still relevant to CuttingEEG's mission,

- the Zenodo materials are fantastic, you could consider putting a doi into the first page of each pdf so that people can more easily find the most recent version (if the pdfs start to get sent around, the source link may now be lost)

- If the authors would like to use a more high-res version of figure 2 from Rae et al, and/or perhaps edit these to accompany a glossary/taxonomy of meetings, I share the original keynote design here https://drive.google.com/open?id=17lZxYFUNe5olcH8u_RgSNKE0jcDUa_Ff&usp=drive_fs

- As much as I applaud the choice of journal (I think it is a great fit), I also very much hope that the authors consider writing a shorter article (perhaps Nature News & Views, or the Transmitter) to inform the wider community, who may not yet be as susceptible to these ideas.

- Can you offer a consulting service to bring this to other communities easily? Neuromatch may be well suited as a partner for this, as they have already made connections in climate science.

Reviewer #2: This is an interesting and important study and I fully support the general approach. At the same time I see significant opportunities for improvement.

It should be clear from the title and abstract that this is an evaluation of a "multi-hub" academic conference. The word "decentralized" is also good and should be used, but it is less specific than "multi-hub". Readers need to get used to the idea of a regular conference having several hubs.The word "multi-hub" is more likely to achieve that purpose.

I see a contradiction between the inclusion goal and the lack of any hub in Asia or Australasia at CuttingGardens 2023. As it stands, the conference could be described as regional (Atlantic) rather than global. Even within that extended Atlantic region, there were severe problems with time zones that were not mentioned.

In fact, the lack of any information at all about time zones in the manuscript is remarkable. It should be a central concern. How did Los Angeles communicate with Iran? The time difference is 10.5 hours! Clearly, the participants at these hubs were not treated equally with those in France.

The bigger picture reveals a hierarchy of "conference experience". Those in France had the best experience, because travel was easy and there were a lot of physically present participants to talk to. Relatively more face-to-face communication. This inequality of the hubs can be solved, as the cited literature shows. Please think creatively about how a future multi-hub conference could be more global and more egalitarian.

This is also about sustainability. Participants who were not conveniently located in Western Europe and who could afford to fly were still motivated to fly to France. One could argue that the mere existence of that motivation makes the conference format unsustainable. If a conference like this is repeated, many will fly to the hub they perceive to be the most central.

"Local hub organisers had the autonomy to devise their own bespoke conference programme while staying within the overarching framework of the conference.“ Which overarching framework? Fig.1 is incomplete. it should show local and global (UTC) times. These are crucial: people don’t enjoy working at 6am or midnight. On that topic, I expect some participants in the survey might have complained about odd working hours. If so, their comments should be included.

The paper devotes a lot of space to the survey and the results are certainly interesting, but one could also object that the questions and answers are unsurprising.

1. Emissions are minimized if flying is minimized. Of course. It is not surprising if participants think that is a good idea.

2. Inclusion is maximized if the total cost for individuals (especially those without much money, for whatever reason) is low and everything is streamed. Again, the participants are bound to agree.

Table 3. It's great to include emission factors. But the emission factor for cars should not be worse than for flying. Please check the literature on this question and clarify the underlying assumptions: What kind of plane or car, assumed number of passengers, role of non-CO2 emissions etc?

Table 4. it’s well known that emissions from streaming are far lower than from flying, so the results of this calculation, although welcome, are unlikely to be important. Besides, emissions from streaming can be reduced to near zero by making electricity supplies entirely sustainable. That is not possible for aviation, at least not for the next few decades at least. So we should be planning for a future in which emissions from electricity are lower, but those from aviation are not.

"The CuttingGardens scenario created approximately twice the emissions of the Fully Online scenario“ — That is possibly true, but again misleading in the sense that emissions from electricity generation are steadily decreasing around the world as renewables take over from fossil fuels. The corresponding increases in aviation efficiency are much smaller, close to zero.

Table 5. Are these average emissions per participant? Averaged over what? Unclear.

Fig 2. If the lines on the graph were individually labeled, the legend could be removed and the graph could be read in black and white.

The equations should either be better explained or omitted. If it’s already clear from the text how total emissions were calculated (as it should be) then the equations may be unnecessary.

The idea of "optimising the hub sizes and locations“ is mentioned but not considered. This is an important issue. How should conference organizers decide where to locate hubs? Which to include and which not? This is related to the above question about time zones.

"many still run centrally which means hubs have little autonomy“ -- it would be helpful to know which conferences are being referred to here. or list some examples.

"a number of the conferences that implemented the hub format during the height of COVID-19 have now reverted back to traditional in-person iterations“ — again, which conferences are these?

"This experience is one humble attempt“ — delete "humble"

The word "bespoke" is inappropriate. It comes up a few times in different places and needs to be replaced.

**********

what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy

Reviewer #1: Yes:  Anne Urai

Reviewer #2: Yes:  Richard Parncuttt

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

Figure resubmission:

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. If there are other versions of figure files still present in your submission file inventory at resubmission, please replace them with the PACE-processed versions.

Reproducibility:

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that authors of applicable studies deposit laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option to publish peer-reviewed clinical study protocols. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols

PSTR-D-24-00224R1

Doing conferences differently: a decentralised multi-hub approach for ecological and social sustainability

PLOS Sustainability and Transformation

Dear Dr. Corneyllie,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS Sustainability and Transformation. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS Sustainability and Transformation's publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript within 60 days May 03 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at SustainTransform@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pstr/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

* A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. This file does not need to include responses to any formatting updates and technical items listed in the 'Journal Requirements' section below.

* A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

* An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, competing interests statement, or data availability statement, please make these updates within the submission form at the time of resubmission. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Jose Carlos Báez, Ph.D.

Section Editor

PLOS Sustainability and Transformation

Jose Báez

Section Editor

PLOS Sustainability and Transformation

Unai Pascual

Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Sustainability and Transformation

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' Comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

publication criteria?>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?-->?>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available (please refer to the Data Availability Statement at the start of the manuscript PDF file)??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: Thank you for your updates to the article, I look forward to keep following this project in the future.

Reviewer #2: Some of my suggestions in the first review have been implemented and others not. I recommend publishing this paper with further revisions corresponding to the following suggestions.

Abstract: “This study is the first to provide evidence of the ecological and social sustainability benefits of doing conferences differently” -- This statement is misleading and should be softened. There are several published articles on multi-hub conferences that demonstrate that such conferences are more sustainable and inclusive, relying on different forms of data or information. The reference list should cover such articles more comprehensively.

“We found the carbon emissions were much lower than a traditional in-person conference, and it was much more socially inclusive so more people could benefit from the experience.” Please include numbers here in the abstract. How much lower, and how much more inclusive.

“There are some analyses of potential CO2 emission savings and opinion pieces about the inclusivity benefits of moving from traditional in-person to virtual or other alternative format conferencing (12, 14, 18). Yet as these are hypothetical in nature **it remains unclear** whether these savings or aspirations of inclusion are realised in practice.” This comment refers to the following papers:

12. Klöwer M, Hopkins D, Allen M, Higham J. An analysis of ways to decarbonize conference travel after COVID-19. Nature. 2020;583:356-9.

14. Levitis E, van Praag CDG, Gau R, Heunis S, DuPre E, Kiar G, et al. Centering inclusivity in the design of online conferences—An OHBM–Open Science perspective. GigaScience. 2021;10(8).

18. Parncutt R, Lindborg P, Meyer-Kahlen N, Timmers R. The Multi-hub Academic Conference: Global, Inclusive, Culturally Diverse, Creative, Sustainable. Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics. 2021;6.

The claim “it remains unclear” is misleading. It is already clear without the present contribution that these alternative formats improved inclusion. Other papers could be cited in support of the claim that inclusion is improved by a multi-hub conference format. Check the papers that other cited papers have cited and look for keywords in google scholar.

Table 3. The authors are still claiming that the typical emission factor (kg CO2eq/km) is higher for driving than for flying. Please consult different studies on this question and address the issue of how many people are in the car or plane in each case, relative to capacity.

Regarding “vegetarian catering, recycling, bringing their own name badges, reduced/no printed material, and reusable crockery/cutlery” and the finding that “interviewees believe these actions helped to reduce the ecological footprint of their local hub” – I recommend presenting this point differently. Given that these measures made little difference relative to total emissions of the conference, the fact that participants thought they made a difference is evidence that many people don’t understand the relative importance of these different measures. That could be part of a complex of misunderstandings that prevent multi-hub conferences from being introduced.

Fig. 1. Thank you for including the time of day in this program sketch. That makes things clearer. The use of the word “garden” is misleading for an academic article – the term “region” would be preferable (you can still mention that the word “garden” was used for regions at this particular conference). The figure clarifies that the international part of the conference program was limited to four hours per day at all locations, which should also be stated. It is the result of a trade-off. The organizers opted for better inclusion and sustainability and in exchange accepted that the duration of the international working day would be shortened.

The order of the panels could be reversed so that “Eastern Garden” is on the right, just as the East appears on the right of a regular map.

In this figure and elsewhere, the words “East” and “West” unfortunately reflect a Eurocentric colonialist viewpoint, which is also reflected in the structure of the conference, based on a central European timezone. The problem could be avoided in part by referring to regions and continents by name (“Africa” etc.) rather than referring to East and West.

Conclusion

The following statement is poorly formulated, and also (if I understand correctly) untrue: “if a narrow carbon-centred focus was taken to ecological sustainability for this specific case study conference, selecting a single European location to host a traditional in-person conference would most effectively lower CO2 emissions.” On the contrary, if all participants from all hubs in this study flew to Europe, the total CO2 emissions would be much greater. The misleading idea is then repeated: “Focusing sustainability efforts on a single indicator (such as CO2 emissions) could lead to perverse effects, where social sustainability (not captured by the indicator) could be put at risk, leading to undesirable long-term consequences.” Please correct or clarify this.

“social sustainability benefits of local hubs centred on the ability to meet with people in-person” – the word “sustainability” seems inappropriate here. The term “social sustainability” is important in other contexts, where it is used differently. The word “sustainability” is certainly appropriate when talking about “ecological sustainability”– either we stop emitting CO2 or we destroy the future. But meeting face-to-face at conferences is not like that. If we stop doing it, the conferences will not be canceled, especially since technology will steadily improve the impression of presence. So I would prefer to avoid the overused term “sustainability” in this case and instead refer directly to the amount of face-to-face communication at the conference relative to virtual communication.

In summary, and in general, the authors could be more self-critical, for example in the following two ways (in the discussion):

The main findings were clear without doing the study. It was clear in advance that the conference format was more sustainable and inclusive than traditional formats. The point of collecting the data was to understand that in more detail and in particular to explore how participants experienced and interpreted these issues. One interesting finding is the contradiction between what most conference participants experienced and understood and what most academic societies are still doing. Academic societies are persisting with the old single-location model although their members understand the benefits of multi-hub conferences, especially if they actually experience such a conference. If that is true, the academic committees that make decisions about conference formats are out of touch with their members. Either that or they are not thinking about these issues, or they have ulterior motives. Multi-hub conferences can only become the norm if that problem is solved.

The same conference could be held again with hubs on all inhabited conferences and an 8-hour international program at each hub, with a 4-hour break in the middle of each local day. In other words, by confining the global program to three equally spaced 4-hour slots per day. Doing that would preserve all the advantages of the multi-hub conference described in this paper, while at the same time adding additional advantages: involvement of more geographical regions (more inclusion) and more international communication at each hub (8 hours per day rather than 4 hours).

**********

what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

Figure resubmission:

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. If there are other versions of figure files still present in your submission file inventory at resubmission, please replace them with the PACE-processed versions.

Reproducibility:

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that authors of applicable studies deposit laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option to publish peer-reviewed clinical study protocols. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols

Doing conferences differently: a decentralised multi-hub approach for ecological and social sustainability

PSTR-D-24-00224R2

Dear Mrs Corneyllie,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Doing conferences differently: a decentralised multi-hub approach for ecological and social sustainability' has been provisionally accepted for publication in PLOS Sustainability and Transformation.

Before your manuscript can be formally accepted you will need to complete some formatting changes, which you will receive in a follow-up email from a member of our team. 

Please note that your manuscript will not be scheduled for publication until you have made the required changes, so a swift response is appreciated.

IMPORTANT: The editorial review process is now complete. PLOS will only permit corrections to spelling, formatting or significant scientific errors from this point onwards. Requests for major changes, or any which affect the scientific understanding of your work, will cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact SustainTransform@plos.org.

Thank you again for supporting Open Access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Sustainability and Transformation.

Best regards,

Jose Carlos Báez, Ph.D.

Section Editor

PLOS Sustainability and Transformation

***********************************************************

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Reviewer Comments (if any, and for reference):

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

publication criteria?>

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?-->?>

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available (please refer to the Data Availability Statement at the start of the manuscript PDF file)??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #2: My second round of comments have been adequately addressed.

**********

what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy

Reviewer #2: No

**********