Subject: Re: [AUDITORY] [External] Re: [AUDITORY] arXiv web of trust From: Jan Schnupp <000000e042a1ec30-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxx> Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2023 17:31:57 +0800--0000000000008878aa05fd72b164 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000008878a905fd72b163" --0000000000008878a905fd72b163 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I guess if reputation biases peer review as heavily as the consensus seems to think here, then what does the often pretty hard time I get from my reviewers tell me about my reputation? ... =F0=9F=A4=94=F0=9F=98=9D Jan On Tue, 6 Jun 2023, 17:17 Peter Harrison, <pmch2@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > Dear all, > > Several colleagues have mentioned how peer review is unduly biased by the > reputation of the authors/institutions. I agree that this is an important > problem, but it's only fair to observe that it applies to preprints too. = In > a world where we don't have time to read every preprint, many people will > still end up using imperfect proxies for deciding what to read, such as t= he > reputation of the authors/institutions. In the absence of a journal's mar= k > of approval, these imperfect proxies could grow more influential, not les= s > influential. > > Best wishes > Peter > ------------------------------ > *From:* AUDITORY - Research in Auditory Perception < > AUDITORY@xxxxxxxx> on behalf of Helia Relano Iborra < > 0000017f74f788f8-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxx> > *Sent:* 06 June 2023 09:21 > *To:* AUDITORY@xxxxxxxx <AUDITORY@xxxxxxxx> > *Subject:* Re: [AUDITORY] [External] Re: [AUDITORY] arXiv web of trust > > > Dear Brian, all, > > > > Thank you for a very enriching discussion. I just wanted to counter > Brian=E2=80=99s last email, regarding the neutrality of peer review. Ther= e is > extensive evidence of =E2=80=9Cstatus bias=E2=80=9D in the peer-review sy= stem in studies > comparing single-blind vs double-blind reviews. E.g. Huber et al. (2022) > https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2205779119 or Blank (1991) > https://www.jstor.org/stable/2006906. No system (or person) is free of > bias, unfortunately. I think recognizing that these biases exist and bein= g > aware of them when we are reviewing manuscripts can only make us better > reviewers. > > > > Best, > > Helia. > > > > > > *Helia Rela=C3=B1o Iborra* > > Postdoc > > Hearing Systems Section > > Department of Health Technology > > heliaib@xxxxxxxx > > =C3=98rsteds Plads > > Building 352 > > 2800 Kgs. Lyngby > > www.dtu.dk/english > > > > > > *From:* AUDITORY - Research in Auditory Perception < > AUDITORY@xxxxxxxx> *On Behalf Of *Brian FG Katz (SU) > *Sent:* 6. juni 2023 09:27 > *To:* AUDITORY@xxxxxxxx > *Subject:* Re: [AUDITORY] [External] Re: [AUDITORY] arXiv web of trust > > > > Dear Bob, et al, > > > > I feel obliged to reply to some serious statements made in recent posts. > While i think there is little doubt that numerous bias elements (privileg= es > of various sorts" are present in career evolutions, recruitment committee= s, > promotions, be them academic or corporate, I must return to the discussio= n > to the topic at hand, in the broad sense, of the importance of peer-revie= w. > > > > As a regular reviewer in various journals (and fields of acoustics) what > is judged is the work on the page, no more and no less. No free rides are > given to authors of high reputation (sometime more scrutiny), nor penalti= es > to young unknowns or unrepresented countries (sometimes more flexibility = is > given). If the arguement for publication is unpersuasive, it is solely on > the merit of the presentation of the work. I say it this way because agai= n > it is only what is on the page that is reviewed. The work itself may be o= f > high standards, but a work is reviewed by what is stated, not what is > intended. As an Associate Editor, the same is true. Specific knowledge of > the author is really only needed to assure lack of direct conflicts of > interest in selecting reviewers. I have never considered the background, > academic or career history of an author in accepting or rejecting a > manuscript. I would even go so far as to say if one considers these > elements in one's reviews they should probably recuse themselves from suc= h > benevolent activities to the community. > > > > Finally, returning to the question of arXiv and preprints, where this all > started, I don't think anyone came out against them on the whole, but the= y > should be taken for what they are, and no more. They are a scientific blo= g > or a conference proceeding. They do not hold the same value, or represent > the same rigor of critique, that a journal article has passed. Thie > difference is clear. However, it is only really relevant in a few > circumstances: as a substantive citation in another journal article, in a= n > academic/research career application/review, or a project proposal (a > version of the previous point). If one doesn't require these elements, an= d > that is a choice, then one isn't limited by the means one chooses to > disseminate one's work. No one has critiqued the use of arxiv and the lik= e, > per se, but if one is competing on the quality of one's work, the proces= s > of peer-review is the widely accepted passage for some semblance of > quality, for which no other alternative currently exists. A review > committee cannot be expected to read every article, let alone the comment= s > section, and be required to form an opinion. > > > > This does not say the process cannot be improved, and that is also the > motivation for journal quality classifications and the exclusion of some > journals from being "acceptable" is those situations. Such rapid > publication and limited review journals are more akin to arXiv than a > reputable journal, though with fees, and rightly so with regards to > scientific scrutiny. One is free to use them for what they are, but one > should not make claims that they are anything more. > > > > At least, that is my perspective. > > -- > > Brian FG Katz > > Equipe LAM : Lutheries Acoustique Musique > > Sorbonne Universit=C3=A9, CNRS, Institut =E2=88=82'Alembert > > > > > > -------- Original message -------- > > From: "McMurray, Bob" <bob-mcmurray@xxxxxxxx> > > Date: 6/6/23 06:09 (GMT+01:00) > > To: AUDITORY@xxxxxxxx > > Subject: Re: [AUDITORY] [External] Re: [AUDITORY] arXiv web of trust > > > > Hi Colleagues > > > > I=E2=80=99ve been watching from the wings on this discussion as I think o= ur field > is in a real point of flux with respect to scientific publishing and > communication, and I don=E2=80=99t think I know what=E2=80=99s best any m= ore. Its been > fun to watch a very healthy and vigorous conversation unfold amonst my > esteemed colleagues =E2=80=93 both junior and senior =E2=80=93 and I=E2= =80=99ve learned a lot. > > > > However, Matt (and Deniz) made a very powerful point, that I felt the nee= d > to weigh in on. They argue that the very nature of scientific > communication is pervaded by issues power, positionality and > discrimination. I don=E2=80=99t think I realized this till recently (perh= aps I was > an Eagle in that cartoon), but they are right. It=E2=80=99s important. > > > > Les, I respect your point of view. We should be having these open and > objective conversations and we should strive for that. But we also have = to > recognize that this is an aspirational point of view. In my view, the > rhetoric of science is not objective. Its persuasive. A scientific > discovery from my lab is not a fact until I convince the scientific > community to believe it (or at least convince Reviewers 1,2 and 3). The > rules of science =E2=80=93 statistical and methodological norms, peer rev= iew, and > the like -- are really designed to ensure that this persuasion is all > geared to some mutually acceptable norms of objectivity. It often works > and there=E2=80=99s not much better. > > > > But fundamentally this is still a persuasive enterprise (as it should > be). And fundamentally, some people =E2=80=93 by virtue of their station= and > background =E2=80=93 are going to be in a better place to persuade their = colleagues > than others. We commonly associate these issues of discrimination and > positionality with things like race, religion and gender. And indeed the= se > things matter =E2=80=93 just look at the disparities among the medalists = of the ASA > and you can see for yourself. > > > > But a good friend of mine recently showed me how these kind of factors > extend all throughout academia. Are some fields privileged? Are hearing > scientists more likely to discount a finding from a linguist or a social > scientist than someone who is solidly situated in hearing science? What > about a finding from a small clinical population (a =E2=80=9Cniche=E2=80= =9D field) or an > obscure auditory phenomena vs. as opposed to a finding based on the core > =E2=80=9Cmodal=E2=80=9D NH adult in a sound proof booth? Are we more lik= ely to take a > finding seriously if it was generated by one of the top universities (in > our field) than a second tier state university? Or from a new scholar th= at > was trained by one of the best vs. an emerging scholar who came to the > field more independently? What about a person who is changing fields =E2= =80=93 > migrating, for example, from a field like cognitive science to audiology = or > hearing science? What about clinical credentialing? Does that help or > harm our cases? > > > > All of these things have nothing to do with the objective argument that i= s > being made and the quality of the data used to support it. But we all mu= st > admit that they do change how much credence we are likely to give a > discussion or a paper (and each of us may weigh these differently). > Sometimes these are useful heuristics =E2=80=93 if the methods aren=E2=80= =99t clear, but > you know how a person was trained, it may be easier to trust that the > experiments were done right. But sometimes this is just downright > discriminatory, like when we discount contributions from outside what we > perceive as the core field. > > > > But how does this impact scientific publishing? > > > > Matt makes the valuable point that as our field opens up to new viewpoint= s > and new participants, the view from those people may be very different th= an > the view from the people at the top. We should listen. People do struggl= e > to gain entry to this field. I certainly did when I began working in > hearing science, despite my training at a very good cognitive science > program. > > > > Peer review is part of the problem. It can amplify these biases. And > peer review is not designed to =E2=80=9Chelp=E2=80=9D new entries =E2=80= =93 its is designed to help > a journal editor decide what to do with a paper. So it often serves as an > impersonal barrier to entry. OF course, we cannot dispense with it. But > we should be actively exploring other models. if this new generation of > talented, thoughtful, diverse and enterprising young scholars wants to > engage in novel modes of scientific communication, I=E2=80=99m happy to l= isten and > to contribute to these new models. > > > > theBob > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 1, 2023 at 1:55=E2=80=AFPM Les Bernstein <lbernstein@xxxxxxxx= > wrote: > > On 5/31/2023 2:15 PM, Matthew Winn wrote: > > *** Attention: This is an external email. Use caution responding, opening > attachments or clicking on links. *** > > There are statements in this thread that cannot go unchallenged, because > they condone and perpetuate harmful ideas that need to end. Specifically: > 1) =E2=80=9CIf one is not a sufficiently confident and independent thinke= r such > that one can express ideas, arguments, disagreements, etc. with anyone in > the field, regardless of stature, then that is a weakness=E2=80=9D > This statement ignores the multiple power structures that affect the live= s > and employment of those below the =E2=80=98upper echelon=E2=80=99 in the = field. Expressing > an idea involves risk when your position is precarious. Adapting to and > weighing that risk is a key survival strategy, not a weakness. I have a > blind spot for this risk =E2=80=93 not because I=E2=80=99m so great at sc= ience, but because > my culture gives me unearned respect because of my demographics. For peop= le > like me (and, I will note, virtually everyone on this thread), we live in= a > culture that insulates us from any sense that our voice doesn=E2=80=99t b= elong. > > > I could not disagree more. The suggestion that, within our field, > different cultural backgrounds confer more or less ability to have > productive scientific discussions with anyone, regardless of status is, a= s > I see it, just plain nonsense. Expressing an idea involves risk? Really= , > in our field of auditory science? I can give plenty of counterexamples t= o > such an assertion. > > > > 2) =E2=80=9Cthink about how such researchers earned such status. It was = not > because they had friends, it was not because people liked them. It was > because they established a track-record of contributions that the field, = in > general, held in very high regard.=E2=80=9D > This is a self-serving narrative that reflects survivorship bias and whic= h > ignores everything we know about how people act in real life. Science is > done by humans, who have personal interests, biases, and who live within = a > culture where status is built on many layers of privilege. Every decision > we make is filtered by these factors, which allow some people (like me) t= o > accumulate a variety of advantages at every career stage, simply because = of > how they look, who their friends are, and where they grew up. They are mo= re > likely to have papers accepted, to be selected for podium presentations, = to > have a job application reviewed, to be interviewed, to be hired, to be > selected as editors and reviewers, to be elected to positions of > leadership, and to be given favorable treatment in the workplace. To be > taken seriously. If we pretend that these advantages are ALL due to the > scientific merit of one=E2=80=99s work, we are characterizing scientists = as some > species entirely separate from the rest of humanity. > > Again, theoretical, social drivel. Lloyd Jeffress, Dave Green, Neal > Viemester, Barbara Bohne, and on and on. > > > > 3) =E2=80=9CStature does not count. Everyone should be held to the very s= ame > standard=E2=80=9D > We all agree that work should not be judged on the basis of who wrote it. > But importantly, the influence of stature doesn=E2=80=99t need to be expl= icitly > suggested in order to actually take place. Similar to the last point, the > idea of equal standards and equal treatment is a convenient fiction that > allows people like me to feel superior because I can attribute my success > to my own hard work and merit, even though many factors that led to that > success were unearned. > > Again, your theoretical musing. Not the reality in auditory science that > I have seen. > > > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D > What does this have to do with preprints? The point is to consider that > others have a different set of constraints, and that our definitions of > merit are tailored to suit those who are already enjoying a wide variety = of > privileges. Consider the forces that lead authors to think that preprints > are useful, and also whether you are facing the same expectations and > constraints that they are. Numerous people have pointed at the apparent > generational divide on this issue - let's figure out why. Graduate > admissions and fellowship review increasingly expect a publication record > that far exceeds anything that would have been expected of the reviewers > when they were at that same career stage. For various reasons, the timeli= ne > of publication is increasingly long. Exacerbating this, it is no longer > enough to simply conduct a good study; one must also curate a data > management and sharing plan that includes open-access data and documented > code. One must learn and conduct the latest statistical techniques that > their advisors never needed to learn, and sift through a much broader set > of literature that includes a lot of garbage. To compete for stable > employment, younger scholars need an internet presence and must learn to > incorporate inclusive language in their writing, even if that were not pa= rt > of their training. They need to express how their work contributes to the > reduction of harm in society, despite being advised by some of the people > who are doing the harm. > > > None of this, much of which I find to be mere unjustified assertion, is a= n > argument for shifting the weight of dissemination of work toward > non-refereed open access. By the way, when was it the case that a solid > knowledge of statistical techniques was unnecessary? Hey, you don't have > to wire together analog equipment to generate your signals! > > > Preprints are not a magical solution that can eliminate the multiple > barriers that I described above. But they have tangible value, and reflec= t > adaptation to a changing academic landscape, rather than reflecting some > loss of =E2=80=9Cstandards=E2=80=9D that are designed to protect those al= ready at the top, > and which were established under an entirely different system of > constraints. > > > Preprints help address the needs for 1) visibility and 2) quicker feedbac= k > on your work from a wider variety of scholars who might not have been > invited to review, simply because they were not in the network of the > associate editor. These factors are often yoked together; the channels th= at > spread awareness of a preprint (like Twitter) might also be the same > channels that generate discussion that becomes useful feedback. The > tendency (or need) to use these dissemination channels probably reinforce= s > the generational divide on this thread. I assure you that the comments I'= ve > received from people enthusiastic enough to read a preprint have had > meaningful influence and value. And those comments can come from a wider > variety of people whose opinions have been historically discounted. > Experienced reviewers will always have a place in our scientific discours= e, > but to discount the benefit and potential of preprints is to be willfully > detached from our current reality. > > > I never said one should not use pre-prints for whatever benefit they can > confer. > > > Matt > > > > -- > > *Leslie R. Bernstein, Ph.D. | *Professor Emeritus > > Depts. of Neuroscience and Surgery (Otolaryngology) | UConn School of > Medicine > 263 Farmington Avenue, Farmington, CT 06030-3401 > Office: 860.679.4622 | Fax: 860.679.2495 > > > > > -- > > Matthew Winn, AuD, PhD > > Associate Professor > > Speech-Language-Hearing Sciences > > University of Minnesota > --0000000000008878a905fd72b163 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <div dir=3D"auto">I guess if reputation biases peer review as heavily as th= e consensus seems to think here, then what does the often pretty hard time = I get from my reviewers tell me about my reputation? ... =F0=9F=A4=94=F0=9F= =98=9D<div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">Jan=C2=A0</div></div><b= r><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Tue, = 6 Jun 2023, 17:17 Peter Harrison, <<a href=3D"mailto:pmch2@xxxxxxxx">pm= ch2@xxxxxxxx</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" sty= le=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> <div dir=3D"ltr"> <div style=3D"font-family:Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:11pt;color= :rgb(0,0,0)"> <span style=3D"font-size:11pt;margin:0px;color:black;background-color:rgb(2= 55,255,255)">Dear all,</span> <div style=3D"font-size:11pt;margin:0px;color:black;background-color:rgb(25= 5,255,255)"> <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-size:11pt;margin:0px;color:black;background-color:rgb(25= 5,255,255)"> Several colleagues have mentioned how peer review is unduly biased by the r= eputation of the authors/institutions. I agree that this is an important pr= oblem, but it's only fair to observe that it applies to preprints too. = In a world where we don't have time to read every preprint, many people will still end up using imperfect prox= ies for deciding what to read, such as the reputation of the authors/instit= utions. In the absence of a journal's mark of approval, these imperfect= proxies could grow more influential, not less influential.</div> <div style=3D"font-size:11pt;margin:0px;color:black;background-color:rgb(25= 5,255,255)"> <br> </div> <div style=3D"font-size:11pt;margin:0px;color:black;background-color:rgb(25= 5,255,255)"> Best wishes</div> <span style=3D"font-size:11pt;margin:0px;color:black;background-color:rgb(2= 55,255,255)">Peter</span><br> </div> <div id=3D"m_-848478907251340195appendonsend"></div> <hr style=3D"display:inline-block;width:98%"> <div id=3D"m_-848478907251340195divRplyFwdMsg" dir=3D"ltr"><font face=3D"Ca= libri, sans-serif" style=3D"font-size:11pt" color=3D"#000000"><b>From:</b> = AUDITORY - Research in Auditory Perception <<a href=3D"mailto:AUDITORY@xxxxxxxx= ISTS.MCGILL.CA" target=3D"_blank" rel=3D"noreferrer">AUDITORY@xxxxxxxx= CA</a>> on behalf of Helia Relano Iborra <<a href=3D"mailto:0000017f7= 4f788f8-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxx" target=3D"_blank" rel=3D"noreferrer"= >0000017f74f788f8-dmarc-request@xxxxxxxx</a>><br> <b>Sent:</b> 06 June 2023 09:21<br> <b>To:</b> <a href=3D"mailto:AUDITORY@xxxxxxxx" target=3D"_blank" re= l=3D"noreferrer">AUDITORY@xxxxxxxx</a> <<a href=3D"mailto:AUDITOR= Y@xxxxxxxx" target=3D"_blank" rel=3D"noreferrer">AUDITORY@xxxxxxxx= LL.CA</a>><br> <b>Subject:</b> Re: [AUDITORY] [External] Re: [AUDITORY] arXiv web of trust= </font> <div>=C2=A0</div> </div> <div lang=3D"DA" link=3D"blue" vlink=3D"purple" style=3D"word-wrap:break-wo= rd"> <div> <p><span>Dear Brian, all,</span></p> <p><span>=C2=A0</span></p> <p><span lang=3D"EN-US">Thank you for a very enriching discussion. I just w= anted to counter Brian=E2=80=99s last email, regarding the neutrality of pe= er review. There is extensive evidence of =E2=80=9Cstatus bias=E2=80=9D in = the peer-review system in studies comparing single-blind vs double-blind reviews. </span><span>E.g. Huber et= al. </span><span lang=3D"EN-US">(2022) <a href=3D"https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1= 073/pnas.2205779119" target=3D"_blank" rel=3D"noreferrer"> https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2205779119</a> or Blank (1991) <a hre= f=3D"https://www.jstor.org/stable/2006906" target=3D"_blank" rel=3D"norefer= rer"> https://www.jstor.org/stable/2006906</a>. No system (or person) is free of = bias, unfortunately. I think recognizing that these biases exist and being = aware of them when we are reviewing manuscripts can only make us better rev= iewers. </span></p> <p><span lang=3D"EN-US">=C2=A0</span></p> <p><span lang=3D"EN-US">Best,</span></p> <p><span lang=3D"EN-US">Helia.</span></p> <p><span lang=3D"EN-US">=C2=A0</span></p> <p style=3D"line-height:12.75pt"><span lang=3D"EN-US" style=3D"font-size:8.= 5pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif">=C2=A0</span></p> <table border=3D"0" cellspacing=3D"0" cellpadding=3D"0" width=3D"400" style= =3D"width:300.0pt"> <tbody> <tr> <td width=3D"400" style=3D"width:300.0pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm"> <table border=3D"0" cellspacing=3D"0" cellpadding=3D"0" width=3D"400" style= =3D"width:300.0pt;border-collapse:collapse"> <tbody> <tr> <td width=3D"50" valign=3D"top" style=3D"width:37.5pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 0= cm"> <table border=3D"0" cellspacing=3D"0" cellpadding=3D"0" width=3D"50" style= =3D"width:37.5pt"> <tbody> <tr> <td width=3D"50" valign=3D"top" style=3D"width:37.5pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm= 0cm"> <p><img border=3D"0" width=3D"36" height=3D"52" id=3D"m_-848478907251340195= x__x0000_i1026" style=3D"width:.375in;height:.5416in" src=3D"cid:image001.p= ng@xxxxxxxx"></p> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </td> <td width=3D"350" valign=3D"top" style=3D"width:262.5pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm= 0cm"> <table border=3D"0" cellspacing=3D"0" cellpadding=3D"0" width=3D"350" style= =3D"width:262.5pt;border-collapse:collapse"> <tbody> <tr> <td width=3D"350" style=3D"width:262.5pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm"> <p style=3D"line-height:120%"><b><span style=3D"font-size:12.0pt;line-heigh= t:120%;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Helia Rela=C3= =B1o Iborra</span></b></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width=3D"350" style=3D"width:262.5pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm"> <p style=3D"line-height:12.75pt"><span style=3D"font-size:8.5pt;font-family= :"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Postdoc</span></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width=3D"350" style=3D"width:262.5pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm"> <p style=3D"line-height:12.75pt"><span lang=3D"EN-US" style=3D"font-size:8.= 5pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Hearing Systems S= ection</span></p> <p style=3D"line-height:12.75pt"><span lang=3D"EN-US" style=3D"font-size:8.= 5pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Department of Hea= lth Technology </span></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width=3D"350" style=3D"width:262.5pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm"> <p style=3D"line-height:12.75pt"><span style=3D"font-size:8.5pt;font-family= :"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"><a href=3D"mailto:heliaib@xxxxxxxx= " target=3D"_blank" rel=3D"noreferrer"><span style=3D"color:black">heliaib@xxxxxxxx= dtu.dk</span></a> </span></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width=3D"350" style=3D"width:262.5pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm"> <p style=3D"line-height:12.75pt"><span style=3D"font-size:8.5pt;font-family= :"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">=C3=98rsteds Plads</span></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width=3D"350" style=3D"width:262.5pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm"> <p style=3D"line-height:12.75pt"><span style=3D"font-size:8.5pt;font-family= :"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">Building 352</span></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width=3D"350" style=3D"width:262.5pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm"> <p style=3D"line-height:12.75pt"><span style=3D"font-size:8.5pt;font-family= :"Arial",sans-serif;color:black">2800=C2=A0Kgs. Lyngby</span></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width=3D"350" style=3D"width:262.5pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm"> <p style=3D"line-height:12.75pt"><span style=3D"font-size:8.5pt;font-family= :"Arial",sans-serif;color:black"><a href=3D"https://www.dtu.dk/en= glish" target=3D"_blank" rel=3D"noreferrer"><span style=3D"color:black">www= .dtu.dk/english</span></a></span></p> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table> <p>=C2=A0</p> <p><span lang=3D"EN-US">=C2=A0</span></p> <div> <div style=3D"border:none;border-top:solid #e1e1e1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm = 0cm 0cm"> <p><b><span lang=3D"EN-US">From:</span></b><span lang=3D"EN-US"> AUDITORY -= Research in Auditory Perception <<a href=3D"mailto:AUDITORY@xxxxxxxx= L.CA" target=3D"_blank" rel=3D"noreferrer">AUDITORY@xxxxxxxx</a>> <b>On Behalf Of </b>Brian FG Katz (SU)<br> <b>Sent:</b> 6. juni 2023 09:27<br> <b>To:</b> <a href=3D"mailto:AUDITORY@xxxxxxxx" target=3D"_blank" re= l=3D"noreferrer">AUDITORY@xxxxxxxx</a><br> <b>Subject:</b> Re: [AUDITORY] [External] Re: [AUDITORY] arXiv web of trust= </span></p> </div> </div> <p><span lang=3D"EN-US">=C2=A0</span></p> <div> <p>Dear Bob, et al,</p> </div> <div> <p>=C2=A0</p> </div> <div> <p>I feel obliged to reply to some serious statements made in recent posts.= While i think there is little doubt that numerous bias elements (privilege= s of various sorts" are present in career evolutions, recruitment comm= ittees, promotions, be them academic or corporate, I must return to the discussion to the topi= c at hand, in the broad sense, of the importance of peer-review.=C2=A0</p> </div> <div> <p>=C2=A0</p> </div> <div> <p>As a regular reviewer in various journals (and fields of acoustics) what= is judged is the work on the page, no more and no less. No free rides are = given to authors of high reputation (sometime more scrutiny), nor penalties= to young unknowns or unrepresented countries (sometimes more flexibility is given). If the a= rguement for publication is unpersuasive, it is solely on the merit of the = presentation of the work. I say it this way because again it is only what i= s on the page that is reviewed. The work itself may be of high standards, but a work is reviewed by what i= s stated, not what is intended. As an Associate Editor, the same is true. S= pecific knowledge of the author is really only needed to assure lack of dir= ect conflicts of interest in selecting reviewers. I have never considered the background,=C2=A0 academic or caree= r history of an author in accepting or rejecting a manuscript. I would even= go so far as to say if one considers these elements in one's reviews t= hey should probably recuse themselves from such benevolent activities to the community.=C2=A0</p> </div> <div> <p>=C2=A0</p> </div> <div> <p>Finally, returning to the question of arXiv and preprints, where this al= l started, I don't think anyone came out against them on the whole, but= they should be taken for what they are, and no more. They are a scientific= blog or a conference proceeding. They do not hold the same value, or represent the same rigor o= f critique, that a journal article has passed. Thie difference is clear. Ho= wever, it is only really relevant in a few circumstances: as a substantive = citation in another journal article, in an academic/research career application/review, or a project proposal (= a version of the previous point). If one doesn't require these elements= , and that is a choice, then one isn't limited by the means one chooses= to disseminate one's work. No one has critiqued the use of arxiv and the like, per se,=C2=A0 but if one is competing on th= e quality of one's work, the process of peer-review is the widely accep= ted passage for some semblance of quality, for which no other alternative c= urrently exists. A review committee cannot be expected to read every article, let alone the comments section, and be = required to form an opinion.=C2=A0</p> </div> <div> <p>=C2=A0</p> </div> <div> <p>This does not say the process cannot be improved, and that is also the m= otivation for journal quality classifications and the exclusion of some jou= rnals from being "acceptable" is those situations. Such rapid pub= lication and limited review journals are more akin to arXiv than a reputable journal, though with fees= , and rightly so with regards to scientific scrutiny. One is free to use th= em for what they are, but one should not make claims that they are anything= more.</p> </div> <div> <p>=C2=A0</p> </div> <div> <p>At least, that is my perspective.</p> </div> <div id=3D"m_-848478907251340195x_composer_signature"> <p>--</p> <div> <p>Brian FG Katz</p> </div> <div> <p>Equipe LAM : Lutheries Acoustique Musique</p> </div> <div> <p>Sorbonne Universit=C3=A9, CNRS, Institut =E2=88=82'Alembert</p> </div> </div> <div> <p>=C2=A0</p> </div> <div> <p>=C2=A0</p> </div> <div> <p><span style=3D"color:black">-------- Original message --------</span></p= > </div> <div> <p><span style=3D"color:black">From: "McMurray, Bob" <<a href= =3D"mailto:bob-mcmurray@xxxxxxxx" target=3D"_blank" rel=3D"noreferrer">bob= -mcmurray@xxxxxxxx</a>> </span></p> </div> <div> <p><span style=3D"color:black">Date: 6/6/23 06:09 (GMT+01:00) </span> </p> </div> <div> <p><span style=3D"color:black">To: <a href=3D"mailto:AUDITORY@xxxxxxxx= CA" target=3D"_blank" rel=3D"noreferrer"> AUDITORY@xxxxxxxx</a> </span></p> </div> <div> <p><span style=3D"color:black">Subject: Re: [AUDITORY] [External] Re: [AUDI= TORY] arXiv web of trust </span></p> </div> <div> <p><span style=3D"color:black">=C2=A0</span></p> </div> <div> <p>Hi Colleagues</p> <div> <div> <p>=C2=A0</p> <p>I=E2=80=99ve been watching from the wings on this discussion as I think = our field is in a real point of flux with respect to scientific publishing = and communication, and I don=E2=80=99t think I know what=E2=80=99s best any= more. =C2=A0=C2=A0Its been fun to watch a very healthy and vigorous conversation unfold amonst my esteemed colleag= ues =E2=80=93 both junior and senior =E2=80=93 and I=E2=80=99ve learned a l= ot.</p> <p>=C2=A0</p> <p>However, Matt (and Deniz) made a very powerful point, that I felt the ne= ed to weigh in on.=C2=A0 They argue that the very nature of scientific comm= unication is pervaded by issues power, positionality and discrimination. I = don=E2=80=99t think I realized this till recently (perhaps I was an Eagle in that cartoon), bu= t they are right. It=E2=80=99s important.</p> <p>=C2=A0</p> <p>Les, I respect your point of view.=C2=A0 We should be having these open = and objective conversations and we should strive for that.=C2=A0 But we als= o have to recognize that this is an aspirational point of view.=C2=A0 In my= view, the rhetoric of science is not objective. Its persuasive.=C2=A0 A scientific discovery = from my lab is not a fact until I convince the scientific community to beli= eve it (or at least convince Reviewers 1,2 and 3).=C2=A0 The rules of scien= ce =E2=80=93 statistical and methodological norms, peer review, and the like -- are really designed to ensure that this persu= asion is all geared to some mutually acceptable norms of objectivity.=C2=A0= It often works and there=E2=80=99s not much better. </p> <p>=C2=A0</p> <p>But fundamentally this is still a persuasive enterprise (as it should be= ).=C2=A0 And fundamentally, some people =E2=80=93 by virtue of their statio= n and background =E2=80=93 are going to be in a better place to persuade th= eir colleagues than others.=C2=A0 We commonly associate these issues of discrimination and positionality wit= h things like race, religion and gender.=C2=A0 And indeed these things matt= er =E2=80=93 just look at the disparities among the medalists of the ASA an= d you can see for yourself. </p> <p>=C2=A0</p> <p>But a good friend of mine recently showed me how these kind of factors e= xtend all throughout academia.=C2=A0 Are some fields privileged?=C2=A0 Are = hearing scientists more likely to discount a finding from a linguist or a s= ocial scientist than someone who is solidly situated in hearing science?=C2=A0 What about = a finding from a small clinical population (a =E2=80=9Cniche=E2=80=9D field= ) or an obscure auditory phenomena vs. as opposed to a finding based on the= core =E2=80=9Cmodal=E2=80=9D NH adult in a sound proof booth?=C2=A0 Are we more likely to take a finding seriously if it was generated by one of the = top universities (in our field) than a second tier state university?=C2=A0 = Or from a new scholar that was trained by one of the best vs. an emerging s= cholar who came to the field more independently?=C2=A0 What about a person who is changing fields =E2=80=93 migrating, for exampl= e, from a field like cognitive science to audiology or hearing science?=C2= =A0 What about clinical credentialing?=C2=A0 Does that help or harm our cas= es? </p> <p>=C2=A0</p> <p>All of these things have nothing to do with the objective argument that = is being made and the quality of the data used to support it.=C2=A0 But we = all must admit that they do change how much credence we are likely to give = a discussion or a paper (and each of us may weigh these differently).=C2=A0 Sometimes t= hese are useful heuristics =E2=80=93 if the methods aren=E2=80=99t clear, b= ut you know how a person was trained, it may be easier to trust that the ex= periments were done right.=C2=A0 But sometimes this is just downright discriminatory, like when we discount contributions from outside= what we perceive as the core field.</p> <p>=C2=A0</p> <p>But how does this impact scientific publishing?</p> <p>=C2=A0</p> <p>Matt makes the valuable point that as our field opens up to new viewpoin= ts and new participants, the view from those people may be very different t= han the view from the people at the top.=C2=A0 We should listen. People do = struggle to gain entry to this field.=C2=A0 I certainly did when I began working in= hearing science, despite my training at a very good cognitive science prog= ram. </p> <p>=C2=A0</p> <p>Peer review is part of the problem.=C2=A0 It can amplify these biases.= =C2=A0 And peer review is not designed to =E2=80=9Chelp=E2=80=9D new entrie= s =E2=80=93 its is designed to help a journal editor decide what to do with= a paper. So it often serves as an impersonal barrier to entry.=C2=A0 OF course, we cannot dispense with it.=C2=A0 But w= e should be actively exploring other models.=C2=A0 if this new generation o= f talented, thoughtful, diverse and enterprising young scholars wants to en= gage in novel modes of scientific communication, I=E2=80=99m happy to listen and to contribute to these new models.</p> <p>=C2=A0</p> <p>theBob</p> <p>=C2=A0</p> <p>=C2=A0</p> <p>=C2=A0</p> <p>=C2=A0</p> <p>=C2=A0</p> <p>=C2=A0</p> </div> </div> <p>=C2=A0</p> <div> <div> <p>On Thu, Jun 1, 2023 at 1:55=E2=80=AFPM Les Bernstein <<a href=3D"mail= to:lbernstein@xxxxxxxx" target=3D"_blank" rel=3D"noreferrer">lbernstein@xxxxxxxx= c.edu</a>> wrote:</p> </div> <blockquote style=3D"border:none;border-left:solid #cccccc 1.0pt;padding:0c= m 0cm 0cm 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:0cm;margin-= bottom:5.0pt"> <div> <div> <p>On 5/31/2023 2:15 PM, Matthew Winn wrote:</p> </div> <blockquote style=3D"margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt"> <div> <p align=3D"center" style=3D"text-align:center;background:#d5eaff"> <span style=3D"font-size:12.0pt;color:red">*** Attention: This is an extern= al email. Use caution responding, opening attachments or clicking on links.= ***</span></p> </div> <div> <div> <div> <p>There are statements in this thread that cannot go unchallenged, because= they condone and perpetuate harmful ideas that need to end. Specifically:<= br> 1) =E2=80=9CIf one is not a sufficiently confident and independent thinker = such that one can express ideas, arguments, disagreements, etc. with anyone= in the field, regardless of stature, then that is a weakness=E2=80=9D<br> This statement ignores the multiple power structures that affect the lives = and employment of those below the =E2=80=98upper echelon=E2=80=99 in the fi= eld. Expressing an idea involves risk when your position is precarious. Ada= pting to and weighing that risk is a key survival strategy, not a weakness. I have a blind spot for this risk =E2=80=93 not = because I=E2=80=99m so great at science, but because my culture gives me un= earned respect because of my demographics. For people like me (and, I will = note, virtually everyone on this thread), we live in a culture that insulates us from any sense that our voice doesn=E2=80= =99t belong.</p> </div> </div> </div> </blockquote> <p style=3D"margin-bottom:12.0pt"><br> <span style=3D"font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-seri= f">I could not disagree more.=C2=A0 The suggestion that, within our field, = different cultural backgrounds confer more or less ability to have producti= ve scientific discussions with anyone, regardless of status is, as I see it, just plain nonsense.=C2=A0 Expressing an idea i= nvolves risk?=C2=A0 Really, in our field of auditory science?=C2=A0 I can g= ive plenty of counterexamples to such an assertion.</span></p> <blockquote style=3D"margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt"> <div> <div> <div> <p><br> <br> 2) =E2=80=9Cthink about how such researchers earned such status.=C2=A0 It w= as not because they had friends, it was not because people liked them.=C2= =A0 It was because they established a track-record of contributions that th= e field, in general, held in very high regard.=E2=80=9D<br> This is a self-serving narrative that reflects survivorship bias and which = ignores everything we know about how people act in real life. Science is do= ne by humans, who have personal interests, biases, and who live within a cu= lture where status is built on many layers of privilege. Every decision we make is filtered by these factors, = which allow some people (like me) to accumulate a variety of advantages at = every career stage, simply because of how they look, who their friends are,= and where they grew up. They are more likely to have papers accepted, to be selected for podium presentatio= ns, to have a job application reviewed, to be interviewed, to be hired, to = be selected as editors and reviewers, to be elected to positions of leaders= hip, and to be given favorable treatment in the workplace. To be taken seriously. If we pretend that these advantag= es are ALL due to the scientific merit of one=E2=80=99s work, we are charac= terizing scientists as some species entirely separate from the rest of huma= nity.</p> </div> </div> </div> </blockquote> <p style=3D"margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span style=3D"font-size:10.0pt;font-fami= ly:"Helvetica",sans-serif">Again, theoretical, social drivel.=C2= =A0 Lloyd Jeffress, Dave Green, Neal Viemester, Barbara Bohne, and on and o= n.=C2=A0 </span></p> <blockquote style=3D"margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt"> <div> <div> <div> <p><br> <br> 3) =E2=80=9CStature does not count. Everyone should be held to the very sam= e standard=E2=80=9D<br> We all agree that work should not be judged on the basis of who wrote it. B= ut importantly, the influence of stature doesn=E2=80=99t need to be explici= tly suggested in order to actually take place. Similar to the last point, t= he idea of equal standards and equal treatment is a convenient fiction that allows people like me to feel superior becaus= e I can attribute my success to my own hard work and merit, even though man= y factors that led to that success were unearned.</p> </div> </div> </div> </blockquote> <p style=3D"margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span style=3D"font-size:10.0pt;font-fami= ly:"Helvetica",sans-serif">Again, your theoretical musing.=C2=A0 = Not the reality in auditory science that I have seen.</span></p> <blockquote style=3D"margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt"> <div> <div> <div> <p><br> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D <br> What does this have to do with preprints? The point is to consider that oth= ers have a different set of constraints, and that our definitions of merit = are tailored to suit those who are already enjoying a wide variety of privi= leges. Consider the forces that lead authors to think that preprints are useful, and also whether you are = facing the same expectations and constraints that they are. Numerous people= have pointed at the apparent generational divide on this issue - let's= figure out why. Graduate admissions and fellowship review increasingly expect a publication record that far ex= ceeds anything that would have been expected of the reviewers when they wer= e at that same career stage. For various reasons, the timeline of publicati= on is increasingly long. Exacerbating this, it is no longer enough to simply conduct a good study; one must also= curate a data management and sharing plan that includes open-access data a= nd documented code. One must learn and conduct the latest statistical techn= iques that their advisors never needed to learn, and sift through a much broader set of literature that in= cludes a lot of garbage. To compete for stable employment, younger scholars= need an internet presence and must learn to incorporate inclusive language= in their writing, even if that were not part of their training. They need to express how their work contr= ibutes to the reduction of harm in society, despite being advised by some o= f the people who are doing the harm.</p> </div> </div> </div> </blockquote> <p style=3D"margin-bottom:12.0pt"><br> <span style=3D"font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica",sans-seri= f">None of this, much of which I find to be mere unjustified assertion, is = an argument for shifting the weight of dissemination of work toward non-ref= ereed open access.=C2=A0 By the way, when was it the case that a solid knowledge of statistical techniques was unnecessary?= =C2=A0 Hey, you don't have to wire together analog equipment to generat= e your signals!</span></p> <blockquote style=3D"margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt"> <div> <div> <div> <p><br> Preprints are not a magical solution that can eliminate the multiple barrie= rs that I described above. But they have tangible value, and reflect adapta= tion to a changing academic landscape, rather than reflecting some loss of = =E2=80=9Cstandards=E2=80=9D that are designed to protect those already at the top, and which were established under an enti= rely different system of constraints.</p> </div> <div> <p>=C2=A0 <br> Preprints help address the needs for 1) visibility and 2) quicker feedback = on your work from a wider variety of scholars who might not have been invit= ed to review, simply because they were not in the network of the associate = editor. These factors are often yoked together; the channels that spread awareness of a preprint (like Twi= tter) might also be the same channels that generate discussion that becomes= useful feedback. The tendency (or need) to use these dissemination channel= s probably reinforces the generational divide on this thread. I assure you that the comments I've received fr= om people enthusiastic enough to read a preprint have had meaningful influe= nce and value. And those comments can come from a wider variety of people w= hose opinions have been historically discounted. Experienced reviewers will always have a place in our scientif= ic discourse, but to discount the benefit and potential of preprints is to = be willfully detached from our current reality.</p> </div> </div> </div> </blockquote> <p style=3D"margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span style=3D"font-size:10.0pt;font-fami= ly:"Helvetica",sans-serif"><br> I never said one should not use pre-prints for whatever benefit they can co= nfer.</span></p> <blockquote style=3D"margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt"> <div> <div> <div> <p><br> Matt</p> </div> </div> </div> </blockquote> <p style=3D"margin-bottom:12.0pt">=C2=A0</p> <div> <p>-- </p> <div> <div> <p><b>Leslie R. Bernstein, Ph.D. | </b>Professor Emeritus</p> <div> <div> <div> <div> <p>Depts. of Neuroscience and Surgery (Otolaryngology) | UConn School of Me= dicine <br> 263 Farmington Avenue, Farmington, CT 06030-3401<br> Office: 860.679.4622 | Fax: 860.679.2495<br> <br> <img border=3D"0" width=3D"125" height=3D"48" id=3D"m_-848478907251340195x_= Picture_x0020_2" style=3D"width:1.302in;height:.5in" src=3D"cid:image002.pn= g@xxxxxxxx"></p> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </blockquote> </div> <p><br clear=3D"all"> </p> <div> <p>=C2=A0</p> </div> <p><span>-- </span></p> <div> <div> <div> <div> <p>Matthew Winn, AuD, PhD</p> <div> <p>Associate Professor</p> </div> <div> <p>Speech-Language-Hearing Sciences</p> </div> <div> <p>University of Minnesota</p> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </blockquote></div> --0000000000008878a905fd72b163-- --0000000000008878aa05fd72b164 Content-Type: image/png; name="image001.png" Content-Disposition: inline; filename="image001.png" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-ID: <> X-Attachment-Id: iVBORw0KGgoAAAANSUhEUgAAAC0AAABCCAYAAADDuF8VAAAACXBIWXMAAC4jAAAuIwF4pT92AAA5 7mlUWHRYTUw6Y29tLmFkb2JlLnhtcAAAAAAAPD94cGFja2V0IGJlZ2luPSLvu78iIGlkPSJXNU0w TXBDZWhpSHpyZVN6TlRjemtjOWQiPz4KPHg6eG1wbWV0YSB4bWxuczp4PSJhZG9iZTpuczptZXRh LyIgeDp4bXB0az0iQWRvYmUgWE1QIENvcmUgNS42LWMxMzggNzkuMTU5ODI0LCAyMDE2LzA5LzE0 LTAxOjA5OjAxICAgICAgICAiPgogICA8cmRmOlJERiB4bWxuczpyZGY9Imh0dHA6Ly93d3cudzMu b3JnLzE5OTkvMDIvMjItcmRmLXN5bnRheC1ucyMiPgogICAgICA8cmRmOkRlc2NyaXB0aW9uIHJk ZjphYm91dD0iIgogICAgICAgICAgICB4bWxuczp4bXA9Imh0dHA6Ly9ucy5hZG9iZS5jb20veGFw LzEuMC8iCiAgICAgICAgICAgIHhtbG5zOmRjPSJodHRwOi8vcHVybC5vcmcvZGMvZWxlbWVudHMv MS4xLyIKICAgICAgICAgICAgeG1sbnM6cGhvdG9zaG9wPSJodHRwOi8vbnMuYWRvYmUuY29tL3Bo b3Rvc2hvcC8xLjAvIgogICAgICAgICAgICB4bWxuczp4bXBNTT0iaHR0cDovL25zLmFkb2JlLmNv bS94YXAvMS4wL21tLyIKICAgICAgICAgICAgeG1sbnM6c3RFdnQ9Imh0dHA6Ly9ucy5hZG9iZS5j b20veGFwLzEuMC9zVHlwZS9SZXNvdXJjZUV2ZW50IyIKICAgICAgICAgICAgeG1sbnM6dGlmZj0i aHR0cDovL25zLmFkb2JlLmNvbS90aWZmLzEuMC8iCiAgICAgICAgICAgIHhtbG5zOmV4aWY9Imh0 dHA6Ly9ucy5hZG9iZS5jb20vZXhpZi8xLjAvIj4KICAgICAgICAgPHhtcDpDcmVhdG9yVG9vbD5B ZG9iZSBQaG90b3Nob3AgQ0MgMjAxNyAoV2luZG93cyk8L3htcDpDcmVhdG9yVG9vbD4KICAgICAg ICAgPHhtcDpDcmVhdGVEYXRlPjIwMTgtMTEtMjhUMTQ6MTA6MTUrMDE6MDA8L3htcDpDcmVhdGVE YXRlPgogICAgICAgICA8eG1wOk1vZGlmeURhdGU+MjAxOC0xMS0yOVQxNTozODozNiswMTowMDwv eG1wOk1vZGlmeURhdGU+CiAgICAgICAgIDx4bXA6TWV0YWRhdGFEYXRlPjIwMTgtMTEtMjlUMTU6 Mzg6MzYrMDE6MDA8L3htcDpNZXRhZGF0YURhdGU+CiAgICAgICAgIDxkYzpmb3JtYXQ+aW1hZ2Uv cG5nPC9kYzpmb3JtYXQ+CiAgICAgICAgIDxwaG90b3Nob3A6Q29sb3JNb2RlPjM8L3Bob3Rvc2hv cDpDb2xvck1vZGU+CiAgICAgICAgIDx4bXBNTTpJbnN0YW5jZUlEPnhtcC5paWQ6MzQ4ZGRkZDEt ZmI2Zi0xZDQ3LWJlOTUtZDIzYjk2OTExODk4PC94bXBNTTpJbnN0YW5jZUlEPgogICAgICAgICA8 eG1wTU06RG9jdW1lbnRJRD5hZG9iZTpkb2NpZDpwaG90b3Nob3A6NmUzY2E0Y2ItZjNlNC0xMWU4 LWE2NGQtYTRlM2VhMTcxM2NlPC94bXBNTTpEb2N1bWVudElEPgogICAgICAgICA8eG1wTU06T3Jp Z2luYWxEb2N1bWVudElEPnhtcC5kaWQ6ODYyZTE0ZmUtNzMyMi00ZjQ3LWI5NmUtMDEyODQ0OGNk NDJiPC94bXBNTTpPcmlnaW5hbERvY3VtZW50SUQ+CiAgICAgICAgIDx4bXBNTTpIaXN0b3J5Pgog ICAgICAgICAgICA8cmRmOlNlcT4KICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgPHJkZjpsaSByZGY6cGFyc2VUeXBl PSJSZXNvdXJjZSI+CiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIDxzdEV2dDphY3Rpb24+Y3JlYXRlZDwvc3RF dnQ6YWN0aW9uPgogICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICA8c3RFdnQ6aW5zdGFuY2VJRD54bXAuaWlkOjg2 MmUxNGZlLTczMjItNGY0Ny1iOTZlLTAxMjg0NDhjZDQyYjwvc3RFdnQ6aW5zdGFuY2VJRD4KICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgPHN0RXZ0OndoZW4+MjAxOC0xMS0yOFQxNDoxMDoxNSswMTowMDwvc3RF dnQ6d2hlbj4KICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgPHN0RXZ0OnNvZnR3YXJlQWdlbnQ+QWRvYmUgUGhv dG9zaG9wIENDIDIwMTcgKFdpbmRvd3MpPC9zdEV2dDpzb2Z0d2FyZUFnZW50PgogICAgICAgICAg ICAgICA8L3JkZjpsaT4KICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgPHJkZjpsaSByZGY6cGFyc2VUeXBlPSJSZXNv dXJjZSI+CiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIDxzdEV2dDphY3Rpb24+c2F2ZWQ8L3N0RXZ0OmFjdGlv bj4KICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgPHN0RXZ0Omluc3RhbmNlSUQ+eG1wLmlpZDozNDhkZGRkMS1m YjZmLTFkNDctYmU5NS1kMjNiOTY5MTE4OTg8L3N0RXZ0Omluc3RhbmNlSUQ+CiAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgIDxzdEV2dDp3aGVuPjIwMTgtMTEtMjlUMTU6Mzg6MzYrMDE6MDA8L3N0RXZ0OndoZW4+ CiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIDxzdEV2dDpzb2Z0d2FyZUFnZW50PkFkb2JlIFBob3Rvc2hvcCBD QyAyMDE3IChXaW5kb3dzKTwvc3RFdnQ6c29mdHdhcmVBZ2VudD4KICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg PHN0RXZ0OmNoYW5nZWQ+Lzwvc3RFdnQ6Y2hhbmdlZD4KICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgPC9yZGY6bGk+ CiAgICAgICAgICAgIDwvcmRmOlNlcT4KICAgICAgICAgPC94bXBNTTpIaXN0b3J5PgogICAgICAg ICA8dGlmZjpPcmllbnRhdGlvbj4xPC90aWZmOk9yaWVudGF0aW9uPgogICAgICAgICA8dGlmZjpY UmVzb2x1dGlvbj4zMDAwMDAwLzEwMDAwPC90aWZmOlhSZXNvbHV0aW9uPgogICAgICAgICA8dGlm ZjpZUmVzb2x1dGlvbj4zMDAwMDAwLzEwMDAwPC90aWZmOllSZXNvbHV0aW9uPgogICAgICAgICA8 dGlmZjpSZXNvbHV0aW9uVW5pdD4yPC90aWZmOlJlc29sdXRpb25Vbml0PgogICAgICAgICA8ZXhp ZjpDb2xvclNwYWNlPjY1NTM1PC9leGlmOkNvbG9yU3BhY2U+CiAgICAgICAgIDxleGlmOlBpeGVs WERpbWVuc2lvbj40NTwvZXhpZjpQaXhlbFhEaW1lbnNpb24+CiAgICAgICAgIDxleGlmOlBpeGVs WURpbWVuc2lvbj42NjwvZXhpZjpQaXhlbFlEaW1lbnNpb24+CiAgICAgIDwvcmRmOkRlc2NyaXB0 aW9uPgogICA8L3JkZjpSREY+CjwveDp4bXBtZXRhPgogICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgCiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAKICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIAogICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgCiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAKICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgIAogICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgCiAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAKICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIAogICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgCiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAKICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIAogICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgCiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAKICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgIAogICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgCiAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAKICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIAogICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgCiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAK ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIAogICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgCiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAKICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgIAogICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgCiAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAKICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIAogICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgCiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAKICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIAogICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgCiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAKICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg IAogICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgCiAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAKICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIAogICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgCiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAKICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIAogICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgCiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAKICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIAog ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgCiAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAKICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIAogICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgCiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAKICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIAogICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgCiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAKICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIAogICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgCiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAKICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgIAogICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg CiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAKICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIAogICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgCiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAKICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIAogICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgCiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAKICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgIAogICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgCiAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAKICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIAogICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgCiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAKICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIAogICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgCiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAKICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgIAogICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgCiAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAKICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIAogICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgCiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAK ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIAogICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgCiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAKICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgIAogICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgCiAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAKICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIAogICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgCiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAKICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIAogICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgCiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAKICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg IAogICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgCiAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAKICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIAogICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgCiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAKICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIAogICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgCiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAKICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIAog ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgCiAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAKICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIAogICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgCiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAKICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIAogICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgCiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAKICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIAogICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgCiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAKICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgIAogICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg CiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAKICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIAogICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgCiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAKICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIAogICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgCiAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAg ICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAKICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgICAgIAo8P3hw YWNrZXQgZW5kPSJ3Ij8+MRSd/wAAACBjSFJNAAB6JQAAgIMAAPn/AACA6QAAdTAAAOpgAAA6mAAA F2+SX8VGAAAFnklEQVR42uyae2wUVRTGf1vswxasFdICGhSsCIIPTImNGvUPtT7a2CAEY0m0YlAT QAz4NvzhW8QIaoyFiMZnCJX4IkGJykMlQlEiyEMeBlRsSqECCygF6x/zrdxeZmZnZ6fIJnuSze6d e+fMt3fOPfc730ysgf/sSWAC0EFniwHtQAuwAmgAlhv9s4DRLufh4qcDmAq8BHwBVKhvEzDc8nE9 8L5x3kPAawAnGYMGAKf4XLQnMBi4DagFPtLxiiTn2TZI34ON84a4jOsDFBvtfokfOcbBPdZJG4FV wGpgn9X3IdBDv9fqTiQ+/1hjj1j9W3S81Riz0wX0Aau9zw20baM1i8OA/kCT1T9K33dpFhKfd6xx T1j9M41wCWV+oM3Q2QU8bvUP1/dBoNn4tFrjdlj9h0nT/EDnW+2tVru3x3mFVrsHEVtOCmP3dzWY rgBtL7LcTADdYeXRWCaA/t9ApgOaLOgs6CzoEyPlZRzomJX2OjIBdK41vj3Na8d8Ni5cKG5OGNBF Xvw2pB1JQglsbIeDgP7bave32s1pgt5r/O4FFFj9JVZ7dxDQ7VapNdXqb0oT9EZrpuut/jqrvdKN 6Ns2F4gD3YByFyramCboN4GxRvtVYKDu4NXAZUbfTyr7jgFd7FGAulmtS03p5ae7x7ivgVeA8cax SR5jR3mVVFsVZ34SwkqV8ct9/tBWI147gN98xk4ANgj4IJeFtxB4BFjfCVBD8lmJycHBFG696Sce 8JyhwOmK773AZtWXxwJqyHKPLOgs6IwBnX+c8ORHAboYRwLeBnwJjHHhCFEArcORfrcBTwGn+tJD j5SXp93pfpEZmyh9oG18cRpgrwJGAiNwZF3TdgHPAzNciJsr6HtwBOx+AS68AfgEWKRdMp5kw6kE rgWqcfTpZPYr8Kx4iSvoMcDDwHkhZ2438IPY2w7NUD7QFzgXRzI+LaTvdQL/dgJ0PfCCC389Ee1P YHIOcAhoy5Bs1wYcMsOjBngUuCSkw+0Kj3UKj4PAyVpkQxQe/UL6XqGs8rHXQrxV4IPEdhPO85dF oq0dSQrZCi3Emzj6JMHP1gvsu0FZ3jhx2TOt45tV1cwHvk/jVg8DbsZ5tlNu9W0DnsF5/JcyNc1V vr4bWAO8rhQXtVWr9LpARcYMP4kiy6dPJNBl2iGruxjLjbpO76TSVIP/tjsZmGLUfGu1kudx9Mlr OjZAlXYdcL6O7Qem6xMPCjoHuE9kqczngp+LNC3wKkA9rC9wg8hSlc+4FpGmF+ksoR0D+k7xjwEp gGgHlgFLge9w3iho0U6bB5QqpVUCVwCX63hQ+0Xpb7YJulTxNEkpJwrbYxCm4oh8rlEqXNCtBibi vH9RFuGiKsBRWaMsGMq0k7Z1q3Fej1iuWDsrAudx4HcVC3FtUHkR+F0sReo9O6ZHKKYrUnC2E/gK WIIzAT9brLEEOEc+r1TFUpqC/1XA06INvinvduABn+pir7bz+Th624EUQBQC12mCqn1ifgMwDXgj 1W18PPAgcIbaS5SnGyPi4CUiTXW6A+AIltOAl9PhHvk47y2twV8tTdcqlb3eAv4KuyNmPGEqOk54 iqIA3RN4TqR8GU4R3D1ioN218JeqZJvmorUECo9C8Y8pLmpPq7JGo8qssHaNIdb0ctlRp4t37A8C eqIoYp8AF94MfGqINW1JMoUp1pQH8N8svWOmF+h6gR0Ycub2GWLNH8oABfrzCbEm7MtamwR+TgL0 WHGPwgxIHAeAe3PED7ZnSLbbDsTN8KgCHhPfDWNbJCkkxJpEePSVhnIxcHZI39/gSM4LvRbiSIG/ MICzbw2xZnWA8Rcpa9QClwYY/6PAzgu6I9ZLrCl3UX3m4mjUa9O41UOV7m5xIWZbxOzmhNnGY0qB 4wRwDvBZF8RqFXCH/shspThPie3fAQBNzUa47xYTtQAAAABJRU5ErkJggg== --0000000000008878aa05fd72b164--