3
SciPoll 637: Crowd Sourcing of Publication Review
What level of compensation would you require to perform a quick critical review of a publication in your area of expertise within 1 month?
Results
(730 Answers)
Answer Explanations
- $0user-907425Taking a month is totally unacceptable.
- $250-499user-924219These journals are profitable and they have gotten free services for decades from skilled and knowledgable physicians and scientists. That needs to change
- $250-499user-847559See above
- $100 -249user-868575hourly rate, no premium
- $100 -249user-441980Because of time constraints
Because of many journal’s request
Because of APC of journal - user-461442I would happily give 1-2 hours without compensation assuming I had the time available .
- $100 -249user-377267I month is a relaxed time frame. Nevertheless, it requires the same working time as within the one week frame.
- $250-499user-542548Compensation based on my hourly fee without an added incentive for a 1-month timeline.
- $1,000-1,999user-983537Assuming the amount of work is the same as in questions 1 and 2 the compensation would also be the same.
- $250-499user-57242Flexibility in time scheduling
- $100 -249user-559827I consider that this amount of money could be appropriate for this period of time for the review.
- $250-499user-786434It is a fair fee for an eventual task
- $100 -249user-653585This is to compensate for my time as I would have left other money making opportunities to review the paper
- $1-99user-355649Appropriate
- $100 -249user-113444If the review is not required immediately, we are not forced to abandon other activities or work extra-hours. Thus the fee could be reduced.
- $100 -249user-33117This will not be much different from a week's timeline.
- $100 -249user-441179Assuming that a critical review requires me to read the publication in detail, it can not be that "quick". Assuming one takes about two hours to read and critically dissect the data and conclusions, a 75-100 dollars/hour seems reasonable to me given the lower level of urgency of the request. This is substantially variable when considering the amount of data in the publication.
- $100 -249user-372960Easier to organize, not very demanding.
- $100 -249user-38414Giving more time to review a paper does not reduce the amount of work needed.
- $100 -249user-51945Same work
- $0user-864332This is a common practice already in my field, and I do it without compensation. I would, of course, prefer compensation but this service is expected in my field.
- $100 -249user-287804same as above
- $100 -249user-138963no less than 100 euros. Expertise in crucial for good referee's task
- $100 -249user-412773Same applies
- $1-99user-348125The compensation range of $1-$99 is suitable for a one-month peer review considering the extended timeframe and level of commitment required. While on the lower end of the scale, this compensation still recognizes the value of the reviewer's time and contribution to the peer review process.
- $1-99user-174346This is what I am paid now.
- $100 -249user-652534less than 100 $ for 2 hours of work means that the quality is low
- $250-499user-770938I believe this is a suitable level of compensation which publishing companies should be more than able to afford.
- $100 -249user-475346My typical rate for pharmaceutical consulting is $400-500/hr, but I would probably consider a "discount" since it's peer review rather than consulting (and the medical journals don't have pockets as deep as the pharmaceutical companies), and 1 month is plenty of time to complete this (most journals request 2-3 week response time in my experience)
- $100 -249user-828172Typical annual consultant/expert's salary divided by number of hours worked over a year to earn the salary
- $1-99user-299419In one month I understand that adjustments would be easier and 50-75 would be fair.
- user-433063I think that $50/hour is a good payment considering the time.
- $250-499user-210113compensation of time spent
- $1-99user-275661Based on my regular monthly salary, one-two hours work would be at the top of this range. One month would be too long, as I could be tempted to delay reviewing. It should be achievable within a week.
- $500-999user-730942Depending on the number of pages, complexity of the work and detail of the results presented. I would have to deeply analyse it and compare it the data available in literature.
- $0user-598503Normal time.
- $250-499user-876767250 usd would be appropriate
- $250-499user-494980Writing a good review suggesting step by step what can be improved and checking each of the reference needs time to be prepared. Even writing takes 1-2 hours preparing review takes much more time depending ona topic and on the kind of the article (review, original, short communication etc.). Even you have a week time writing a review takes you the same amount of time. I believe it is better to do it at once from the beginning to the end so the amount of time for the review is important but still you need to be paid well for your professional work.
- $100 -249user-819310As it might requre up to a full days load but with working another assignments in 30 days and not as such stressful to deliver in some of the previous experiences I have had, getting a compensation of $100-249 is fair considering 8 working hours with a fair daily rate of consulatncy service payment for professionals and also underatnding this is a professional ethics to criticize and make contribution for the science. Furthermore, considering the least payment which is $100, the range I selcted is fair.
- $2,000+user-958657penalty for delays imposed - why a month?
- $1-99user-914553More reasonable, most Journals give 3 weeks to perform a review
- $250-499user-386308A month to review a work is a much calmer task.
- $100 -249user-938667as above
- $0user-126332This is a pretty typical turnaround for a journal, and I do many such free reviews. We need to support non-profit journals sponsored by scientific societies, and they will likely continue to need free reviews to stay viable.
- $500-999user-446741A thorough review is 2-3 hours work. A reasonable hourly rate for my expertise is $250, even at 1-2 hours that is $500. Reviews in this timeframe typically are not compensated, but given the commercial nature of this proposal, going rate is appropriate.
- $0user-416823This is what I usually do
- $500-999user-549473Whatever the time an expert
Must have a compensation for assessing a paper and in fine allowing the publisher to earn a lot of money - $100 -249user-242774With this 1 month timeframe + in an area of my expertise, the $100.00 would be very reasonable.
- $100 -249user-474509See previous answer
- $1-99user-8676399 usd for my work + 0 usd for disturbing my plans
- $0user-780719Same as #2.
- $100 -249user-480270The longer the evaluation time, the less pressure it applies. And there's plenty of time to do it in peace.
- $250-499user-692996For more higher level
- $1-99user-109201Because when you review a manuscript, you have to hold your own pending tasks. Moreover, open access or paid journals charge from author but don't pay potencial reviewers. Payment to reviewers would enhance quality of reviewing.
- $1,000-1,999user-819356This represents the minimum fee for reviewing a research paper within one month.
- $1-99user-330420Corrected Text:
Reviewing a manuscript comprehensively can take approximately 3 to 4 hours, requiring a high level of academic expertise. - $100 -249user-740731The work is quite a skilled job
- $250-499user-36877One month is too much
- $1-99user-169864A fair retribution for a complex task.
- $1-99user-492635Same as above.
- $500-999user-988041Same as above.
- $100 -249user-105956I work as a consultant and do not have a salary. So, a minimal level of compensation is nice.
- $250-499user-774962The review time, assuming that you are referring to the same article, would be the same regardless of the time allotted.
- $500-999user-579540What is important for me is the total amount of time and energy I spend to complete a task. So, whether it is required within a day or a week or a month will not change that. However, having flexibility will increase my willingness to do the work.
- $1-99user-697539The reason is same as above except that more time is now available for concentrating on the subject matter and my schedule can be adjusted for the review
- $0user-935064There would be ample time to perform the review at my leisure.
- $500-999user-904430This regards a long time involvement with in deep study
- $100 -249user-337025You are right, experts need at least a symbolic support for their time and effort, support which will bust their involvement as reviewers, especially in a short time frame.
Of course the complexity of the paper/work can require variable (lower or higher) such expected support.
Success and all the best! - $100 -249user-86609I would require I would require at least $100 per hour for compensation (2 hours = $200).
- $500-999user-223303See above
- $1-99user-496176
I prefer this amount because it is enough for me to review the article within 1 month.
- $100 -249user-126416Spending 1 month for reviewing and sharing critical comments is worthy of the selected reimbursement amount
- $1-99user-888372I have served as a reviewer for years but didn't take any compensation.
- $100 -249user-61732Professional job and as such should be rewarded
- $1-99user-660265I think, month review should not be much payable, too encourage the scientist to make their revisions quicker, to make the publication's process easier, and it suppose to be in my opinion max $50.
- user-684482Reviews will almost always take more than 1-2 hours of work. A month isn't any more of an inconvenience than a week.
- $250-499user-802001see above.
- $250-499user-446692Just based on the hourly rate.
- $500-999Sonne72Same.
- $250-499user-267969All the comments I've made above still apply but the longer timeline makes it much easier to conduct, thus the low end of the range $250-499 seems appropriate. Of course we have all done this for free for a long time!
- $100 -249user-841110How long I have doesn't really matter to me. It is the time spent that matters.
- $2,000+user-274801The level of compensation would depend on the size (number of words) of the article, as it includes the time to read and analyze the article and the time to write the review report (a preset grading criteria, and little required writing, i.e. 1 to 2 hours of work), thus approximately 12 hours of work and more, up to 35 working hours). Assume that the article (such a review or report) is longer (16 pages and more, up to 40 pages).
- $100 -249user-489806One month is almost too much time, and it should be avoided. I have never taken more than 10 days for my reviews. Journals have a timeline, and authors are anxious to know whether they are accepted, or if they should move on to another journal. Yes, extra time allows for deeper analysis, but there is no such thing as a perfect journal article.
- $1-99user-881641A month is long enough to carry out the review at a pace not too constrained as far as timing is concerned.
- $2,000+user-982423Estimation only
- $1-99user-570468It would be easier to incorporate into my agenda.
- $1-99user-125484Peer review is a process that evaluates the validity, quality, and originality of articles, with the ultimate goal of maintaining the integrity of science by filtering out invalid or poor quality articles, all that need less effort.
- $250-499user-2080511-2 hours of work: my rate is $250
- $100 -249user-480744Assuming the review would take 1-2 hours and and the review could be done over many weekends, then it is only fair to ask for the same hourly rate as my own salary as anything could occur within a month in research.
- $0user-589243Medicine is already prostituted enough to charge fees for reviewing clinical work. OK?
- $250-499user-86448see above
- $250-499user-802518Same answer as above
- $100 -249user-753791The ease of carrying out the peer review in such circumstances is less pressurizing.
- $100 -249user-371021100 USD
- $100 -249user-215705Academic journals rake in large sums of profit every year with open access fees typically in excess of $2,000 - $3,000 USD per article. Many popular journals publish hundreds or thousands of articles annually, such as MDPI which is a publisher that owns dozens of academic journals. The Scholarly Kitchen website reported that in 2020, MDPI made between $2 million and $12 million USD in profit from article processing charges alone, this likely includes the fact that they offer a small APC waiver to peer reviewers ranging from $50 to $200 USD (however, it is an APC waiver and not cash). Considering that reviewers are typically not paid, it seems a publisher such as this one could stand to offer $200-300 hundred dollars to each reviewer (assuming 2 per article) and still be profitable. I'm sure this number would vary across journals depending on staffing levels. MDPI has a very sizeable staff size, whereas some journals are almost completely volunteer (i.e. editor-in-chief, associate editors, reviewers are all volunteer and then a few hired staff handle website, publishing, etc.). If I were to receive around $150 - $250 per review with about 2hours of work, I would be more inclined to accept peer review assignments, regardless of the length of time I have to complete it (i.e. 1 month, 1 week, 1 day). However, I would simply decline a 1-day window in many instances due to time, and a higher premium would likely entice more people to accept it.
- $100 -249user-923404This would require setting aside fewer hours a day or week to complete the suggested 1-2 hours of work within a month, hence the lower rate.
- $100 -249user-567411Usually, this amount is sufficient to cover the process and encourage the reviewer.
- $0user-601789In Academia, peer review is a community service.
- $2,000+user-382369By doing a similar argumentation as above:
The current average salary in my country (Argentina) as full professor/ principal investigator is 2000 USD per month. Therefore, if we consider similar compensations for work, a compensation of a revision that would take a month would be 2000 USD. On the other hand, other countries (such as USA) pay an average of 7000 USD per month. Therefore a fair compensation for a revision that would take one month would be 7000USD per week for an american senior investigator.
However, the work burden is similar for all investigators whichever their country is. For this, I consider that an average of 2000 to 7000 USD would do. - $100 -249user-576481Same as above
- $100 -249user-637348More time less stress on brain
- $100 -249user-397052If requests for reviews were solicited like most journals do now (use their expertise database) and not use the same reviewer more than once in a defined period of time, I think some type of compensation is reasonable. However, I could see how this could be abused so guardrails must be put in place.
- $250-499user-510547This is a fair rate for the technical review in my field of expertise
- $100 -249user-827851Three hours of work
- $500-999user-898830Since I get more time to review.
- $1,000-1,999user-966722My monthly salary is 1800EUROS-1933.73962 USD.
- $100 -249user-78154Time
- $1-99user-920951As above
- $0user-550886idem
- $250-499user-102269In Mexico, the per hour-fee as an expert in my field (Economics) for the industry is around USD 150. Two hours of work is 300 USD.
- $250-499user-414626Same as for the 1-day response.
- $100 -249user-363225All peer reviews requires a thorough and in-depth review no matter the timing required for the publication process
- $500-999user-969485A month suggests that windows of time may become available with which one could chip away at a review without delaying/sacrificing other work or opportunities.
- $250-499user-142393I’m Not an experienced reviewer but I am expert in my area. This would still take me 4-5 hours or work or more
- $100 -249user-673903Compensation is good but it is somewhat of an obligation for scientists to perform as reviewers in the scientific community.
- $100 -249user-905834One month is a very flexible time to review tough and difficult manuscripts thoroughly. This is quite manageable, so I do two to three review months. So, I proceed with a lesser amount. However, the quality of this review will definitely be better than that of one day review.
- $100 -249user-608413Equakl that a period of one week, the review can be made without impact in personal agenda, but requieres additional tiem on this purpose
- $0user-494570Science is all about contribution. Therefore, I encourage everyone to think about quality and contribution, not the money.
- $500-999user-642125Given a month to do a high-quality review, it would be very unlikely to need to reschedule other events, and I would be willing to accept a lower compensation than for 1 day turn around, but not less than for a 1 week turnaround since my time is valuable and it still takes several hours to do a proper review.
- $100 -249user-520983Nothing less than $200.
- $100 -249user-754769A one-month grace period gives some leeway for peer review, but it still requires a significant commitment of effort.
- $500-999user-657550Compensation will depend on the paper's difficulty level.
- $2,000+user-153764The higher rate assumes a more complex task.
- $0user-779771With no time constraints, compensation isn't really an issue.
- $250-499user-775305My normal rate for consulting.
- $0user-532803I believe it is my duty to provide peer review and expected as part of my paid job as an academic.
- $0user-731405it for free, but the possibility of some small earnings would probably increase my motivation and reduce the risk of me refusing to do it.
- $0user-60141wouldnt entertain this time line as an author that would be unacceptable
- $2,000+user-821219The median of this pay range option. Assuming this is not the usual full review of original or systematic review articles that could take upto 4-5 hours of accumulated work, and reviews in writing around 500 word counts.
- $1,000-1,999user-669670For a quick critical review of a publication in my area of expertise within one month, I would consider compensation in the range of $1000-$1999 to be reasonable. Here's the rationale behind this:
- Extended Timeframe: A one-month timeframe allows for a more thorough and comprehensive review compared to shorter deadlines. It provides ample time to carefully examine the publication, conduct additional research if necessary, and formulate detailed feedback.
- Expertise and Quality: As an expert in the field, my expertise and knowledge contribute significantly to the quality and depth of the review. Compensation at this level reflects the value of the time, effort, and expertise required to deliver a comprehensive evaluation of the publication.
- Motivation and Commitment: Compensation serves as a motivator and demonstrates a commitment to the review process. Paid reviews are often more thorough and reliable due to the dedication they represent.
- Blind Review and Preset Criteria: The blinding of identity and use of preset grading criteria streamline the review process, allowing the focus to remain on the critical assessment of the content rather than administrative tasks.
- Additional Responsibilities: Within the one-month timeframe, there may be additional responsibilities such as responding to author queries, participating in reviewer discussions, or revisiting the review for revisions, all of which contribute to the overall workload and justify the compensation level.
In summary, a compensation range of $1000-$1999 aligns with the extended timeframe, expertise required, and additional responsibilities associated with performing a thorough and thoughtful review within one month. It reflects the value of the reviewer's contributions and ensures a diligent and professional approach to the peer review process. - $1,000-1,999user-593019That wouldn't make a huge difference.
- $1-99user-661948It applies the same reasons as in the 1st question.
- $100 -249user-460248I probably would not go lower than $100, unless the topic interests me a lot or I like the journal.
- $250-499user-132334As above
- $100 -249user-349303This would increase the feeling of responsibility from the reviewer to deliver in time
- $0user-573537I have difficulties in understanding how a 1 month time lapse could be fitted under the concept of a "quick critical review"
- $100 -249user-108505A normal review would be 4 weeks, so this is completely okay
- $250-499sab2xHourly consulting rate, assuming 2 hours of work.
- $100 -249user-901717This is because there is more time for review.
- $100 -249user-861466not much different from 1 week
- $1-99user-222888Enough time to do a review and so compensation can be less
- $1-99user-676638Since one month is quite sufficient to allow liberty to a reviewer to take the review assignment at his convinient time, a little bit lower compensation (anything above $75) may be okay. Here the compensation can purely be for the review, and not for handling a tight timeline.
In all above answers, I have assumed that there will be separate remuneration for reviwing the same manuscript after revision. - $100 -249user-404672See above
- $100 -249user-248213One month is a time lapse with a low pressure level.
- $1-99user-546254Hourly compensation, less time pressure.
- $1-99user-956623When estimating the compensation for fulfilling an assignment on short notice, it is important to take into account not only the time that is required to fulfill the assignment but that there will be the need to cancel/postpone other important business or work outside normal working hours. 1 month's notice makes it unlikely that this will be a necessity
- $100 -249user-138300Normal fee
- $100 -249user-946844My university bills my time as $400 an hour but I could do this in small tranches which don't interfere with my other work.
- $100 -249user-255626Hi,
Since I am new to Scipinion, I would charge 100$. But this can change later. - $1-99user-540634One month should be the standard time, enough for proper review of a manuscript involving several readings. Still it should be paid to improve the present system. I consider compensation between $1 and $9 adequate, larger quantities may lead to researches considering it an alternative salary, as one can be reviewer for many journals
- $1-99user-266855The same amount of work is still required. But there is time to fit it in with my current work.
- $0user-987379One month is a bit of an embarrassment, to be honest. If I postponed it that much, I wouldn't expect any compensation.
- $250-499user-437100Allow me to do other things in the week and still review the publication
- $1-99user-477977Again, a reward can elevate the quality of the review but I don't believe that more than 100 $ would be fair.
- $1-99user-315417I do peer review without compensation at the moment. However I don't think it is unreasonable for reviewers to get a share of the profits that large publishers are making. I would be inclined to review more articles if I was getting paid to do it.
- $500-999user-200863It depends and may vary from nothing to $1,000+ for review depending on the nature and purpose of the review. For example, nothing to very little (<$500) if the review is for a paper that will immediately help the general public for a crisis and it is for a journal that doesn't charge for the publication. I may ask for what I charge for my consulting if the manuscript is for something that will generate revenue for a business and/or for a journal that charges for publications.
- $100 -249user-744452As above
- $250-499user-836594It also has to be done in my spare time and for it I have to pay income tax, health contribution and likely go into another taxation bracket
- $1-99user-242221It's not a matter of how long it takes to conduct a review, as this is strongly influenced by the reviewer's level of expertise in the subject matter of the study under review. However, it is crucial that a researcher's time is compensated, even symbolically, but it must be valued. Reviewers should be selected based on strict eligibility criteria to prevent anyone from taking advantage of the remuneration without being suitable for the reviewer role.
- $250-499user-70642Reviewing is a job that requires knowledge and time.
- $100 -249user-474161In my opinion, around $ 100 should be enough with this time frame
- $0user-673264I do this regularly for no fee.
- $100 -249user-151126100
- $100 -249user-41956See answer to Q1
- $250-499user-156962As 1 and 2 above. The costs are the same whether I do the review in 1 day or 1 month. Except that my schedule would probably not allow for the first option.
- $500-999user-86421The expertise of the reviewer must be reconpensaated
- $250-499user-43697In reality there is no difference between a return time of one week and one month. There are 1-3 hours of work involved which would be billed at my standard hourly rate
- $250-499user-639182No change, that is the value of the review
- $250-499user-561710the ranges are too wide
- $100 -249user-434792It is fair enough to criticize the manuscript
- $1-99user-101632Thats a bit less of what i make in 1 or 2 hours but within a month would probably do it during dead times (i.e. like waiting for an appointment or using public transport)
- $100 -249user-798488I used weekeneds.
- $250-499user-852959See above. Personally, I see now reason to give someone a month to respond if the amount of actual work required is only 1-2 hours. In fact, such a lengthy period is likely to result in no response as, in my experience, people generally do the work at the last minute and so are likely to forget to do it by the end of a month....
- $250-499user-508906Basic consideration: Manuscript with mid-level complexity and size (manuscript ~40 page 1.5 line distance including all manuscript sections without supplements, approx. 7 figures with up to 6 independent subitems) . Sufficient reviewer expertise to get instantly into the topic.
Understanding the basic story (abstract, figures) 0.5h
reading the entire manuscript 2h
cross-search in the literature 1h
evaluation, writing evaluation resport (approx. 2 pages, 1 line distance) 1h
submission into an electronix system 0.5h
In total for basi evaluation 5h, considering a rate of 100$/h; total basic costs 500$
This a realistic time schedule for an qualified review that helps the authors to improve their manuscript.
No extra charge for accelerated evaluation. - $100 -249user-813921same as above
- $100 -249user-917733It can be dilueted further
- $250-499user-564243that's how much an hour to 2 hours of expert work is evaluated for such a delay
- $100 -249user-28974it usually takes 4-5 hours, but i need to arrange them like off-duty hours
- $100 -249user-270335The compensation should be according to the revision job, which include not just a quick read but the chance of a deep check of references used, numbers and results consistency.
- $100 -249user-168151A bit longer and will be a disadvantage for the journal.
- $1-99user-190861As above
- $2,000+user-417588Same
- $500-999user-345911It depends about the complexity of the paper: If we are talking about the same work planed for a day or for a month, the amount is quite lower of an immediately review. But obviously if the proposal is a new complex investigation, 500$ is a reasonable minimum amount
- $250-499user-9722521 month is a comfortable duration for a review.However, it has to be attractive to increase the motivation
- $0user-891259If I have an opportunity to choose my own pace and the topic is interesting, I take the review for free.
- $1-99user-239098Should be able to fit into my work time, but also longer time scales often mean I spend longer working on it, so I prefer shorter turn arounds if I know when they are happening and can plan other deadlines in advance.
- $1-99user-590282Takes almost 8 hours to critically review a manuscript.
- $500-999user-634909The answer is based on an estimated hourly rate for a mid to senior PhD-level scientist in industry or academic, and the necessity to get behind on other work in order to prioritize the manuscript review and complete quickly, i.e., other work responsibilities/assignments would be delayed. If there is a month to review, it is likely that the review would be higher quality and more time would be spent on it, in comparison to a day, or a week. With a month, a reviewer could schedule pockets of time to review, look up references, and re-read sections as necessary.
- $100 -249user-304796Same thing
- $100 -249user-359518Because of the time dame given to complete the he review
- $250-499user-222153Same rational throughout.
- $100 -249user-801912Under a certain amount, the compensation saturate
- $100 -249user-136424This is based on my current hourly rate of $100/hour
- $0user-891148This should be the right time for all the submitted articles. Payment could affect the quality of the review, so a low compensation or no compensation should be applied.
- $250-499user-469485In case if reviewer is taking one month in the process, it may provide valuable suggestions on one side, but, on other side, authors have to wait for long. This makes reviewing process lengthy and sometimes authors may receive negative results after waiting a long time and suffer some academic losses.
- $100 -249user-997202It gives a time to review and it why I reduced the amount to be paid.
- $100 -249user-15825I give this value as compensative
- $0user-917846There is no need for compensation as there is the time necessary to carry out the review
- $1-99user-839058I believe that $50-99 is a fair valorisation of the experience acquired in a sector made available to revise a manuscript within a period of one month, in which the management of the revision can take place with peace of mind
- $1,000-1,999user-245397Most of the time is sent for a critical reading review and critically analyzing the manuscript data. Each manuscript is different and the use of Engish language is also important. The actual price is 150-200 euro per hr.
- $0user-921990See my response above.
- $100 -249user-801044Performing peer review within a month would be plannable.
- $500-999user-1893101-2 h of my work for $500 with normal priority is what I would bill privately. This is the ordinary rate.
- $1-99user-251614This accounts for my time, but as I would be able to perform the review at my discretion over the month, it would necessitate less reorganization of my ongoing experiments.
- $1,000-1,999user-356107Manuscript review is a highly specialized task that requires extensive knowledge in specific areas. In some cases, the review requires several days or several time intervals. The idea of the manuscript must be understood in order to make suggestions or proposals appropriate to the nature of the work.
- $500-999user-834001This would be about 3 to 4 hours of work for a detailed and comprehensive work. No difference compared to one week.
- $100 -249user-902950Something along the lines of $30-40 per hour of work is acceptable, though the fee may increase if the specialty subject is particularly niche or challenging
user-509561
12/11/2024 12:22