text:
\section{Introduction}

Peer review is the fundamental process used by the scientific community to ensure the quality of academic publications (cf. e.g., \cite{Alberts2008,Bornmann2013,SquazzoniTakacs2011}). Several generations of scientists have contributed high-quality reviews, while only authorship has been credited for academic career. It is not easy to rationalize why researchers provide impartial reviews and constructive advice voluntarily, as they need to sacrifice time that could be used for their own research activities \cite{Bernstein2013}. In consequence, it is a puzzle how the system of peer review can be sustainable at all.

This puzzle can be described as a double social dilemma game \cite{BianchiEtAlWp,SquazzoniBravoTakacs2013} where scientists can choose levels of efforts for both manuscripts and reviews. Given the presence of costs in terms of time and effort, no contribution (sloppy review) is the best reply strategy for reviews. When all scientists play according to their best reply strategy, the resulting outcome is no scientific control on the quality of submitted papers. The dominant strategy equilibrium of low quality reviews mean that submissions need not be of high quality. Due to the immense costs of producing high quality work, authors are best off by submitting poor manuscripts. In short, in the lack of explicit sanctions and incentives, low-quality submissions and low-quality reviews from the dominant strategy equilibrium in the social dilemma of scientific production.

Although social dilemmas of this kind are difficult to resolve in general, certain theoretical solutions have already been proposed that can be applied to the context of peer review. The most evident improvement might come from shifting the payoffs in favor of cooperation. For instance, the reward for overall cooperation can be introduced by attaching higher importance on scientific quality through the introduction or  increased emphasis on journal metrics, such as impact factor. Another straightforward solution is the application of selective incentives \cite{Olson1965}: allocating additional benefits for authors of high-quality papers (e.g., promotion and grants, which is current practice) and for reviewers writing high-quality reports (which is rare in current practice).

Direct \cite{Axelrod1984,Axelrod1981} and indirect reciprocity \cite{Boyd1989,Milinski2002_1,Milinski_2002a,Milinski_2001,Nowak2006,Nowak2005,Semmann2005} are potential solutions to social dilemmas, if the chance of repetition is high and the opportunities for retaliation are in foresight. In the context of peer review, indirect reciprocity can be facilitated, for instance, by rotating the roles of authors, reviewers, and editors \cite{BravoSquazzoniTakacs} . The social embeddedness of scientific production further enhances the chance of solving the social dilemma efficiently \cite{Barrera2008,Coleman1986}. The small world aspect of working in specific fields, the intertwined network of co-authorship, participation in international project consortia, and hangouts at conferences all reduce the competitiveness and improve the pro-social character of reviewing.

Furthermore, once informal communication, gossip, reputation, image scoring, and stratification enters into the structure of the social dilemma, cooperation might emerge and be maintained \cite{Sommerfeld2007,Sommerfeld}. Recording, keeping, and relying on reputational scores has become an efficient guideline for cooperation in many areas of life \cite{Dellarocas2003}.
Earlier achievement and reputational information certainly plays an important role in current practice both for editorial and reviewer decisions \cite{Paolucci2014}.

Social incentives that are associated with direct and indirect reciprocity and the structural embeddedness of peer review might be key mechanisms that rationalize cooperative behavior of reviewers. The importance of social incentives is highlighted also by surveys asking for the motivations of reviewers \cite{Malicki,Warne2016}. In fact, monetary incentives might be in conflict with or drive out social incentives when applied to reviewers \cite{Chetty2014,SquazzoniBravoTakacs2013}.
These solutions for social dilemmas might help us to understand how peer review can work and be sustained. Once the fundamental mechanisms are studied rigorously, they can also lead to policy recommendations on improvements of the current system and the design of new solutions (cf. \cite{PaolucciGrimaldo2014}).

The rest of this paper is divided in three sections. In Section \ref{themodel}, we  introduce our agent-based model of scientific work and peer review. We report simulations results in Section \ref{results} and we conclude in Section \ref{conclusion}.

\section{The model}
\label{themodel}

\subsection{The baseline model of peer review}

We model the production of scientific work and its peer review by a simple agent-based model. In this paper, we build on the view that the aim of peer review is to ensure scientific production and evaluation \cite{Gilbert1997}. The model emphasizes the costly character of high-quality manuscript submissions and reviewer contributions. We take it as granted that high-quality submissions lead to better science, but reviews impact scientific quality only indirectly. Our model makes radical simplifications on the practical aspects of the peer review system intentionally. This way, we aim at providing a straightforward assessment of the institutional conditions and editorial policies under which authors are motivated to produce high-quality submissions and reviewers are motivated to provide high quality reviews. Hence, we are primarily interested in the emergence of cooperation that results in scientific quality.

The model contains $N$ scientists as agents who write single-author papers. At each discrete period $t$, each scientist performs the task of an author - by producing one article -  and the task of a reviewer. Authors and reviewers comprise of an identical set of agents. For the sake of simplicity, we consider a single journal with a single editor, who is not an author or a reviewer in the journal.
Authors can produce low or high quality contributions that they submit to the editor. The editor selects $\mu$ (set to two in our simulations) reviewers for each paper choosen uniformly at random\footnote{An alternative specification, where editor decision are proportional to the reputation of scientists has been studied with results qualitatively similar to those proposed in the next session.}  with an upper limit $k$ of reviews for each reviewer (set to four for the sake of our simulations). We assume that reviewers always accept requests, but they do not necessarily invest high effort in performing reviews. It is of their strategic decision to produce a low quality review at low cost (normalized to zero) or a high quality review at high cost. The former is the best reply strategy of the reviewer if no further incentives are provided. The review is translated into a binary recommendation (accept or reject) which is passed on to the editor. We assume that the recommendation is random with fifty-fifty percent chance of accept or reject in case of low reviewer effort and reflects the quality of the submission perfectly in case of high reviewer effort.
The editor's decision is based on incoming recommendations and it has a binary outcome: accept or reject. We consider a single round of review. Acceptance benefits the author, but benefits the editor (the journal and scientific development in general) only if the submission was of high quality.

The incentive structure and the strategy space of the game are defined as follows. The editor wants to maximize high-quality scientific output in the journal and would like to minimize the number of low-quality articles appearing in the journal. This means that similarly to the model of \cite{BianchiEtAlWp}, papers that are accepted and of bad quality are the most harmful for the journal. These values are used as output measures to evaluate the performance of the entire system in our simulations.

The situation is of asymmetric information \cite{SquazzoniBravoTakacs2013}, in which the editor is unable to assess the true quality of submissions or the true effort of reviewers. The true quality of accepted papers is revealed probabilistically after publication (that we will fix to $P_{reveal}=1$ in the simulations reported) and there is no way for the editor to assess the true quality of rejected submissions. The crucial parts of editorial policy are therefore the selection of reviewers who can be trusted for their recommendations and the extent of reliance on reviewer recommendations. Several strategies could possibly be used in order to arrive at proper conclusion. We vary these editorial strategies in between simulations, because these
could be easily translated into policy recommendations.

Keeping a reputational account of scientists is part of all such strategies. Editorial reputations of scientists are improved largely by high quality publications (named $GP$), degraded even more by low quality publications ($BP$), worsened by rejected submissions ($Rej$), improved by good reviews ($GR$) and worsened by bad reviews ($BR$). Good reviews are those where the paper is revealed of the same quality of what the reviewer said. Bad reviews are those where there is a difference, i.e. where the paper is revealed as bad while the reviewer said that it was good or where the paper was revealed as good, but the reviewer recommended rejection (in case of conflicting reviews). In summary, the editorial reputation of scientist $i$ is given as:

\begin{equation}
REP_i^E = \#GP-\#Rej- \alpha*\#BP+ \gamma*(\#GR-\#BR)
\end{equation}

where $\#Rej=\#BN+\#GN$ (the sum of bad and good rejected papers) and $0<\gamma<1$. Please note the asymmetric character of reviewer bias: as the high quality of rejected papers is never revealed, rejection is a safer strategy for reviewers (a rejection recommendation can only turn out to be a bad review in case other reviewers recommended publication, the paper has been published, and its true high quality has been revealed). Parameter $\alpha>1$ represents the relative detrimental effect for the journal reputation of accepting a low quality paper.

Incoming reviews are assumed to lead to editorial conclusions according to an editorial policy which is assumed to be fixed and not updated within a simulation. We manipulate editorial strategies, between the simulations in order to compare the effectiveness of these policies. Editorial strategies differ with regard to reviewer selection, the handling of conflicting reviews, and relying on author reputations in desk rejection and acceptance. The last element will only be added to the extended model. We consider four editorial strategies with regard to reviewer selection and handling of conflicting reviews. For all of them, if all referees agree, then the editor follows the unanimous advice. In case of \textit{disagreement}, the editor can use one of the following strategies:
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{AP}: Reject;
\item \textbf{1P}: Accept;
\item \textbf{ER}: Follow the advice of one of the referees chosen at random  probability proportional to the relative editorial reputations of the referees;
\item \textbf{MR}: Follow the advice of the most reputed referee.
\end{itemize}

Authors have perfect information about the quality of their own submissions. Similarly to the model of \cite{BianchiEtAlWp}, authors decide to submit a paper of low quality (at low cost) or at high quality (at high cost). They are best off with the publication of their low-quality papers. Thus, in terms of obtained payoffs: $BP > GP > BN > GN$.
For the simulations we assume that all agents receive a unit of endowment $e+E$ (research time) in each period, which they lose by investing high effort in writing a high-quality paper ($e$) and high-quality reviews ($E$, where $0<E<e$). We assume no gain from not being published ($V_{N}=0$). Being published yields a positive return $V_{P}>e$. The numerical payoffs in our simulations are:

\begin{eqnarray}
\pi_{BP} = V_{P} + e = 2 + 1 = 3 \\
\pi_{GP} = V_{P} = 2 \\
\pi_{BN} = V_{N} + e = 0 + 1 = 1 \\
\pi_{GN} = V_{N} = 0 \\
\end{eqnarray}

When in the role of reviewers, scientists first accept editorial requests to review submissions. We assume that this does not entail any significant costs: the time spent on pushing the "accept" button in an editorial managerial system is negligible and the social costs of being committed to reviewing are counterbalanced by gaining access to papers before their publication.
Once papers are assigned to reviewers, they decide to invest low effort (no loss from the endowment of valuable time) or high effort in performing the task.
A high reviewing effort implies a deduction from the endowment $E$ that is proportional to the ratio between number of good reviews and the number of assigned reviews.
Low effort is the best reply strategy of reviewers.

Altogether, writing high quality papers as well as writing high quality reviews entails sacrificing valuable research time for scientists. For the sake of simplicity, we assume that endowments are not transferable between the two kind of activities. In this way, unlike \cite{BianchiEtAlWp}, we disregard the potential time conflict between writing high-quality papers and reviews. In their model, scientists need to allocate time between submissions and reviewing. In our model, both activities are costly if they are performed well.

In line with the current duality of practices, two cases are compared: single blind and double blind reviews \cite{Seeber2016}. In case of single blind reviews, reviewers can condition their recommendations on the reputation of the author. In case of double blind reviews, only the editor is able to make decisions based on the reputation of authors. In case of a single blind review system, the reviewer strategy can be conditional on the public reputation of the author. Unlike the editorial reputation of authors, the public reputation of an author $i$ depends only on \textit{published} papers and does not severely punishes bad publications:

\begin{equation}
REP_i^P = \#GP-\#BP
\end{equation}

 As reviewers are also authors, author and reviewer strategies are bundled and are characterized by the following elements:
\begin{itemize}
\item A decision for the production of manuscripts can be either:
\begin{itemize}
\item $c$: produce manuscripts of high quality (cooperation)
\item $d$: produce manuscripts of low quality (defection)
\end{itemize}
\item A decision for the production of reviews that can be either:
\begin{itemize}
\item $C$: produce reviews at high effort (cooperation)
\item $D$: produce reviews at low effort (defection)
\item $Rep$: exercise high effort with a likelihood that is proportional to the public reputation of the author of the paper (cooperation conditional on reputation)\footnote{This option is only available for the single blind case.}.
\end{itemize}
\end{itemize}

Individual strategies are assigned to scientists at the start randomly and in equal numbers for each combination. This results in four bundled strategies for the double blind case and in six bundled strategies for the single blind case. Authors decide according to their strategy types to submit a paper of low quality or at high quality (at high cost), which is sent out for review according to the rules determined by the editorial policy. Reviewers act according to their strategies and provide recommendations of accept or reject to the editor. Papers are selected for publication as a result of the recommendations of the reviewers and the editorial policy.

The evolution of author/reviewer strategies is modeled with a replicator dynamics rule adjusted to a finite population. Scientists adopt strategies that ensured higher average payoffs in the previous time period in the population, while disregard strategies that resulted in lower payoffs. Specifically, at a given time $t$ each individual has a probability $P_{evo}$ of being selected for updating his strategy. If this happens, then his new strategy is selected randomly with a probability proportional to the difference of the given strategy to the average expected payoff, weighted for the current strategy frequencies. Formally, the expected new population size for strategy $j$ is given by:

\begin{equation}
N^j_{t+1}= N^j_t + \left(\overline{P_t^j} \cdot N^j_t - (N_t^j-\overline{P_t})\right)\delta
\end{equation}
where $\overline{P_t^j}$ is the average payoff of strategy $j$, while $\overline{P_t}$ is the average payoff in the whole population and $\delta$ is the speed of evolution. We constrain the finite replicator dynamics process such that all strategies have an integer number of representations in the population and no $N^j_{t+1}<0$.
Note that the strategies of agents evolve and not the agents are replaced. This means that agents accumulate editorial and public reputation throughout the simulation.

\subsection{Reputation-based selection and Journal Impact Factor}

In order to keep the model simple and to concentrate on some key mechanisms, other details are fixed to some natural values and some possible elements can be activated upon choice, which we list below.

\paragraph{Limit to the number of publications.}
The number of publications is limited to a fixed proportion $\epsilon \ll 1$ of submissions. If the referee process produces too many accepted papers given the current editorial policy of the editor, then all accepted contributions are ranked according to editorial reputation $REP_i^E$ of the authors and only the first $\epsilon N$ papers are published. Throughout the paper, for simulations reported, we consider a medium level of competition with $\epsilon=0.3$.

\paragraph{Journal Impact factor.}
In recognition of the fact that publishing in a reputed journal produces a payoff that depends also on the quality of past published papers, agents who publish a paper may receive an increase to their payoff equal to:
\begin{equation}
JIF_t=\kappa*\frac{\sum GP_t}{\sum GP_t + \sum BP_t}
\end{equation}

At each given time step $t$, the public good benefit of Journal Impact Factor (JIF) is given to all authors who get their papers published, irrespective of quality. The higher the proportion of high-quality papers, the higher the JIF is. Note that the introduction of JIF increases payoffs for publications produced at high effort, but increases free rider rewards for those who are able to publish low-quality work to the same extent. We assume that the Journal Impact Factor is a public good for those who published with a linear production function, where the increment $\kappa \geq 1$ describes the public value of a single scientific contribution. The lack of a Journal Impact Factor and a linear public good with $\kappa \leq 1$ describes a situation that is worse than the Prisoner's Dilemma: even full cooperation does not compensate for the entailed costs ($R \leq P$). Considering the Journal Impact Factor and $\kappa>1$, translates the game into a true linear Public Good Game, which is still extremely difficult to solve. For the sake of the simulations of this paper we assume $\kappa=2$.

\paragraph{Desk-rejections and speeding up publication.}
With increased time-pressure and burden of reviewers, it is common practice that not all submissions are sent out for review. Some submissions are desk-rejected and others have an easy, speedy route for publication. Editorial decisions behind are very much based on the reputation of authors. We implement desk-rejection and desk-acceptance as an additive feature compared to the baseline model.

Desk-rejection and acceptance introduces a bias in favour of individuals with higher reputation and in damage of individuals with lower editorial reputation compared to the baseline model. Essentially, we introduce the possibility for the editor to desk-reject or accept submissions proportional to the relative editorial reputation of the author, regardless of recommendations by referees. Please note that as producing low or high-quality reviews is also part of editorial reputations, in this way, reviewers receive some compensation for their low or high reviewing efforts.
The rule added to editorial decisions is as follows:
\begin{itemize}
\item Compute the minimal editorial reputation $min(REP_i^E)$, the maximal editorial reputation $max(REP_i^E)$ and the median editorial reputation $median(REP_i^E)$ of agents.
\item If $REP_i^E<median(REP_i^E)$, then with probability
\begin{equation}
P_{da}=\frac{REP_i^E - min(REP_i^E)}{median(REP_i^E)-min(REP_i^E)}
\label{deskacceptance}
\end{equation}
the paper is desk rejected, and with probability $1- P_{da}$, it is sent to the referees.
\item If $REP_i^E>median(REP_i^E)$, then with probability:
\begin{equation}
P_{dr}=\frac{REP_i^E - median(REP_i^E)}{max(REP_i^E)-median(REP_i^E)}
\label{deskrejection}
\end{equation}
 the paper is desk accepted, and with probability $1- P_{dr}$, it is sent out for review.
\end{itemize}

\section{Results}
\label{results}

\subsection{Baseline results}

We first demonstrate that in the baseline model in which scientists face costs for producing high-quality manuscripts and costs for producing high-quality reviews, there is no chance of any cooperation. This is not surprising, because low effort in writing papers as well as low effort in writing reviews is the dominant strategy in the baseline game.
Figures \ref{Baseline_doubleblind}, \ref{Baseline_singleblind}, and \ref{Stats_baseline}
 report that this is the case both for double blind and for single blind peer review systems considering a neutral editorial policy (AP). In all cases, the strategy implying the production of low quality papers and reviews (dD) overtakes the entire population. To examine the failure of the scientific peer review process more closely, consider that high-quality review does not return any benefits in any case, therefore every reviewer is better off by choosing D. In a population with only dD and cD strategies, dD yields higher average payoffs since, if people review randomly, there is a 50\% chance of getting a low-quality paper published, which is exactly the same for high-quality submissions. As cD strategies do not benefit anything from peer review, but they entail higher costs for the author, they die out.
Without any feedback loop that would help to ensure the production of scientific quality, science ends up as an empty exercise.

\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.24\textwidth]{double_rrrc_ap_userep_0_IFMulti_0_JIF_0_PropBundleStrat.jpg}
\includegraphics[width=0.24\textwidth]{double_rrrc_mr_userep_0_IFMulti_0_JIF_0_PropBundleStrat.jpg}
\includegraphics[width=0.24\textwidth]{double_rrrc_1p_userep_0_IFMulti_0_JIF_0_PropBundleStrat.jpg}
\includegraphics[width=0.24\textwidth]{double_rrrc_er_userep_0_IFMulti_0_JIF_0_PropBundleStrat.jpg}
\caption{The failure of scientific cooperation in the baseline model with double blind reviews (2 random referees) under different editorial policies. Respectively: AP (First Panel), MR (Second Panel), 1P (Third Panel), ER (Fourth Panel). All illustrative simulations concern the baseline model: the population is composed of 1200 individuals; initially divided among the four possible bundled strategies; simulations run till convergence or until $t_{max}=100000$; papers are assigned in random order to randomly chosen referees; each referee can review up to 4 papers and a maximum of  30\% of the papers are publishable in each period.}
\label{Baseline_doubleblind}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.24\textwidth]{single_rrrc_ap_userep_0_IFMulti_0_JIF_0_PropBundleStrat.jpg}
\includegraphics[width=0.24\textwidth]{single_rrrc_mr_userep_0_IFMulti_0_JIF_0_PropBundleStrat.jpg}
\includegraphics[width=0.24\textwidth]{single_rrrc_1p_userep_0_IFMulti_0_JIF_0_PropBundleStrat.jpg}
\includegraphics[width=0.25\textwidth]{single_rrrc_er_userep_0_IFMulti_0_JIF_0_PropBundleStrat.jpg}
\caption{The failure of scientific cooperation in the baseline model with single blind reviews (2 random referees) under different editorial policies. Respectively: AP (First Panel), MR (Second Panel), 1P (Third Panel), ER (Fourth Panel). All illustrative simulations concern the baseline model: the population is composed of 1200 individuals initially divided among the 6 possible bundled strategies; simulations run till convergence or until $t_{max}=100000$; papers are assigned in random order to randomly chosen referees; each referee can review up to 4 papers and a maximum of  30\% of the papers are publishable in each period.}
\label{Baseline_singleblind}
\end{figure}

\paragraph{Baseline with reputation-weighted consideration of reviews.}
Figure \ref{Baseline_doubleblind} and Figure \ref{Baseline_singleblind} contain also cases in which the editorial policy takes into account the editorial reputations of reviewers and attach higher weights to the opinion of higher reputed referees. These are editorial policies MR and ER. The strategy dD still gains overwhelming dominance under these policies.
This is because such policies do not ensure the occurrence of correlated equilibria: the larger weight to opinions does not mean at all that these opinions would favor high-quality contributions more than others. Low effort in reviewing is a dominant strategy for every author. The opinion of those who started with cooperation receive higher weights, but they still underscore defectors with regard to payoffs. The initial population that is
equally divided among different types of strategies goes through a quick and progressive elimination of cooperative strategies.
In this process, having a relatively bad reputation does not matter for payoffs as the chances of publishing a paper become equivalent for good and bad papers over time.

\paragraph{Baseline with the entry of reputational concerns.}
Somewhat surprisingly, the editorial policy that ensures a low, but stable level of cooperation is 1P. This is an editorial policy, which accepts all papers, if there is at least one positive recommendation from the reviewers. Seemingly, this policy is neutral to reputation. But in fact, this is not the case. As there is a constraint on how many papers can be published, the friendly 1P editorial policy generates the largest surplus of acceptable manuscripts. In case of a surplus, the editor ranks the papers based on the editorial reputation of the authors. Hence, a direct feedback on reputation exists, which is sufficient to guarantee in some simulation runs a stochastic mixed strategy equilibrium with the survival of cooperation.

\subsection{Reputation bias in editorial policy}

As we demonstrated, accounting on reputation of reviewers for making judgment on manuscripts is insufficient to trigger the production of high-quality reviews and high-quality papers. We should see if a more direct consideration of editorial reputation leads to higher efforts and as a result to better science. Note that the model extension in this direction is related intentionally to  popular discussions whether editors should be unbiased or they could rely on reputation signals of authors from the past. Should they catalyze the Matthew effect in science, in which the successful get even more success? Should they contribute to the maintenance of the old-boyism bias? If they do, does it hurt or help scientific development?

Let us first introduce an editorial bias in favour of authors with high $REP_i^E$  and against authors with low one. We assume that authors with an editorial reputation higher than the median has a chance of desk acceptance that increases linearly with their reputation (Equation \ref{deskrejection}). Similarly, we assume that authors with an editorial reputation lower than the median has a chance of desk rejection that is in negative linear association with their reputation (Equation \ref{deskacceptance}).
This modification does not rule out peer review, but concentrates its decisive character to the middle range, where no clear reputational judgment can be expected from the editor.

Results with this extension show no major breakthrough for cooperation: dD dominates the outcomes (Figure \ref{ReputationEditorialAlone}).
Either with double blind or single blind peer review, all agents become of dD type.
This indicates that a direct editorial bias in desk acceptance and rejection in itself is insufficient to trigger a large extent of cooperation.
This kind of editorial bias, however, is able to support the survival of conditional cooperation of reviewers (Figure \ref{Stats_REPUTATION}).
When a strict editorial acceptance policy is applied (AP), the lack of publishable material leads to the need of selecting submissions based on reputation. The high effort in producing scientific material, however, does not pay off because of the difficulties of acceptance. Scientists therefore follow the easier path of gaining higher reputation and might place high effort in reviewing others. Reviewing efforts are profitable when they are most likely to provide reputation benefits. The public reputation helps the referees to get the best out of their reputation-based conditional strategy: when the public reputation of an author $REP^P_i$ is high, then it is more likely that his paper gets published, and therefore it is more likely that a review of high quality will ensure positive returns in terms of editorial reputation.
As a result, the cooperative reviewer strategy that is conditional on the reputation of the author might survive in case of single blind peer review.
This happens because the editor might provide a differential treatment for individuals with higher reputations earned strictly by high-quality reviews.
At the opposite, when the author's reputation is low, then reviewers with a strategy conditional on author reputation do not bother and follow the cheap strategy of providing random advice. In this case, their payoff is not different from agents who never put high effort in reviewing.

\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=5cm]{double_rrrc_mr_userep_1_IFMulti_0_JIF_0_PropBundleStrat.jpg}
\includegraphics[width=5cm]{single_rrrc_mr_userep_1_IFMulti_0_JIF_0_PropBundleStrat.jpg}
\caption{The impact of reputation bias in editorial policy in desk acceptance and rejection of papers: double blind review (Left Panel) and single blind review (Right Panel). Papers are assigned in random order to two random referees. The editorial strategy is MR. Other parameters are as in the baseline.}
\label{ReputationEditorialAlone}
\end{figure}

\subsection{Introducing the public good of Journal Impact Factor (JIF)}

The introduction of Journal Impact Factor implies that a public good bonus is added to the payoff of each agent publishing a paper. The size of the public good is proportional to the performance of the journal in terms of good papers published. Large public good benefits in the presence of some reputational motives allow for strategies producing high quality papers to survive and disseminate (Figure \ref{JIF_alone}). Furthermore, the analysis of the population evolution shows that when JIF is active, most strategies producing low-quality papers disappear from the population. This means that if a journal publishes high-quality papers, it ensures that submissions are also of high quality.

This is good news given the fact that the public good reward of JIF as a payoff supplement does not erase the social dilemma structure of the game.
Defection is still the best reply strategy both for authors and for reviewers. Still, cooperation evolves; thanks to the editorial account of author reputations and to the large initial share of cooperative strategies that survive the early phase of the simulation. Full cooperation is among those who disappear relatively late (Figure \ref{JIF_alone}), which assists the dominance of the  high-effort-in-writing and low-effort-in-reviewing strategy. As a consequence, the rise of good papers at the end is not accompanied by good reviews (Figure \ref{Stats_JIF}).
Still, the scientific development is maintained at the best and results in the highest possible JIF. This means that only high quality papers are published. Peer review just adds a random noise for the publication process and it is meaningless anyway because everyone contributes with high-quality submissions.

\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=5cm]{double_rrrc_mr_userep_0_IFMulti_0_JIF_1_PropBundleStrat.jpg}
\includegraphics[width=5cm]{single_rrrc_mr_userep_0_IFMulti_0_JIF_1_PropBundleStrat.jpg}
\caption{The effect of introducing a Journal Impact Factor into the payoffs: in a double blind (Left Panel)  and single blind (right panel) peer review system. Papers are assigned in random order to two random referees.  Editorial strategy is MR. Other parameters are as in the baseline.}
\label{JIF_alone}
\end{figure}

\paragraph{Journal Impact Factor together with strong reputation concerns.}
Public good rewards that supplement the original payoff structure largely improve the opportunities for scientific development and lead to the overall success of the cD strategy. We have also seen that under certain editorial policies that take account of reputation, a low level of full cooperation (cC) can be sustained also without the public good reward. When we introduced desk rejections and acceptance based on reputation to the baseline, then some agents gained reputation successfully with a conditional reviewing strategy dRep. It is therefore interesting to observe which strategies are successful if both JIF and strong reputation concerns are accounted for.

The results show that the strongest determinant of the evolution is the Journal Impact Factor (Figures \ref{JIFandReputation} and \ref{Stats_JIFandREPUTATION}). When it matters, even under strong reputation concerns, high-effort publication strategies gain dominance with low-effort reviews. This is very much meaningful once there is a reward for reputation and the most reputational gains can be obtained by high-quality publications.

\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=5cm]{double_rrrc_mr_userep_1_IFMulti_0_JIF_1_PropBundleStrat.jpg}
\includegraphics[width=5cm]{single_rrrc_mr_userep_1_IFMulti_0_JIF_1_PropBundleStrat.jpg}
\caption{The effect of accounting Journal Impact Factor into the payoffs and using  reputation in editorial policy: in a double blind (Left Panel)  and single blind (right panel) peer review system. Papers are assigned in random order to two random referees.  Editorial strategy is MR. Other parameters are as in the baseline.}
\label{JIFandReputation}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=5cm]{single_rrrc_ap_userep_0_IFMulti_0_JIF_0_StrategiesEnd.jpg}
\includegraphics[width=5cm]{single_rrrc_ap_userep_0_IFMulti_0_JIF_0_JournalElements.jpg}
\caption{Baseline distribution of each strategy type   (Left Panel)  and journal statistics (Right Panel) at the end of simulation. Results are distribution from 100 iterations with editorial strategy AP.  For all simulations: Review system is single blind; papers are assigned in random order to two random referees, the population is composed of 1200 individuals initially divided among the 6 possible bundled strategies; simulations run till convergence or until $t_{max}=100000$; papers are assigned in random order to randomly chosen referees; each referee can review up to 4 papers and a maximum of  30\% of the papers are publishable in each period.}
\label{Stats_baseline}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=5cm]{single_rrrc_ap_userep_1_IFMulti_0_JIF_0_StrategiesEnd.jpg}
\includegraphics[width=5cm]{single_rrrc_ap_userep_1_IFMulti_0_JIF_0_JournalElements.jpg}
\caption{The effect of using reputation in editorial policy. Distribution of each strategy type  (Left Panel)  and journal statistics (Right Panel) at the end of simulation. Results are distribution from 100 iterations with editorial strategy AP and single blind review system.  Other parameters are as in the baseline (See Fig \ref{Stats_baseline}).}
\label{Stats_REPUTATION}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=5cm]{single_rrrc_ap_userep_0_IFMulti_0_JIF_1_StrategiesEnd.jpg}
\includegraphics[width=5cm]{single_rrrc_ap_userep_0_IFMulti_0_JIF_1_JournalElements.jpg}
\caption{The effect of accounting Journal Impact Factor into the payoffs. Distribution of each strategy type  (Left Panel)  and journal statistics (Right Panel) at the end of simulation. Results are distribution from 100 iterations with editorial strategy AP and single blind review system.  Other parameters are as in the baseline (See Fig \ref{Stats_baseline}).}
\label{Stats_JIF}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=5cm]{single_rrrc_ap_userep_1_IFMulti_0_JIF_1_StrategiesEnd.jpg}
\includegraphics[width=5cm]{single_rrrc_ap_userep_1_IFMulti_0_JIF_1_JournalElements.jpg}
\caption{The effect of accounting Journal Impact Factor into the payoffs and using reputation in editorial policy. Distribution of each strategy type (Left Panel) and journal statistics (Right Panel) at the end of simulation. Results are distribution from 100 iterations with editorial strategy AP and single blind review system. Other parameters are as in the baseline (See Fig \ref{Stats_baseline}).}
\label{Stats_JIFandREPUTATION}
\end{figure}

\paragraph{Tacit agreements}
To complete the story, we still miss a mechanism that makes writing as well as reviewing papers plausible and sustainable without radically altering the payoff structure of the game. A realistic possibility is to consider "tacit agreements" that work against the impartiality of peer review in practice. Tacit agreements are based on direct reciprocity and might  work better in case of single blind reviews, in which at least one side of the informational asymmetry is relaxed. A "nice" tacit agreement strategy could start with high effort in the first $n$ rounds, recognizes previous reviewers of own papers with $p$ probability and retaliates them not with high effort/low effort, but with acceptance / rejection recommendation. Once there is a coordination device that brings high quality submissions in the hand of highly reputed reviewers, then acceptance recommendations would match true quality. In this case, the editorial selection policy will matter, because this would create the possibility of low cost reciprocation for high performing scientists.  This is in line with the conclusion of similar empirical and simulation work \cite{DondioetAlWP}. Many believe that this is the game that is played by the top researchers in top journals.
It is important to note, however, the possible drawbacks of self-emerged network-based practices, including old-boyism, partiality, and a conservative bias \cite{Sarigol2014,Sobkowicz2015,SooS2016}.

\section{Conclusion}
\label{conclusion}

It is puzzling why scientists devote considerable time and effort for writing reviews that decreases their time spent on their own research. Once everyone acts according to self-interest, reviews are all of low quality and they cannot be adequately used to judge scientific quality. As a consequence, scientists submit low quality work in the hope of passing through randomly judging reviewers. We have labeled this puzzle as the miracle of peer review and scientific development. We investigated some potential mechanisms that might resolve this puzzle by agent based modeling.

We have modeled scientific production accordingly: with an incentive structure in which low efforts in writing papers as well as in writing reviews is the dominant strategy of agents. We applied a replicator dynamics rule to the population of scientists, allowing for the reproduction of strategies that result in higher payoffs. Not surprisingly, low effort in writing papers as well as in writing reviews have spread in the population and scientific practice has become an empty exercise in our baseline model.

Next, we assumed that editors might rely on the reputations of authors in their choices. In our model with a single journal, the editor took perfect account of high- and low-quality publications of authors, the number of their rejected papers, and if their reviewer recommendations were in line with the true quality of the paper or not. We examined different editorial policies that took account of the reputations of scientists.
We showed that if reputations are used in reviewer selection, then it does not save science from low quality submissions and low quality reviews. A bit more surprisingly, easing the route for publication by desk acceptance for highly reputed authors alone has not changed anything either. All this indicated that the emergence of cooperation in the form of high efforts is an extremely difficult puzzle.

Some cooperation has resulted from a friendly editorial policy that categorized submissions as publishable if at least one reviewer recommended publication. This policy led to an oversupply of publishable material, which called for the ranking of submissions based on author reputations. This direct feedback has made the investment in reputations profitable. Consequently, high-effort author strategies survived in a mixed equilibrium together with low-effort author strategies, but nobody invested effort in reviewing.

Also when a strict editorial acceptance policy was applied, in which only papers with unanimous reviewer support are published, some cooperation has emerged. In this case, however, the lack of publishable material was responsible for the worth of reputation. As the investment in reputation via writing papers was risky due to the difficulties of publishing, scientists profited more from the investment in reputation via reviews. A strategy that conditioned high reviewing efforts on the author's reputation was able to gain a notable share in the population.

Reputations worked to some extent, but public good benefits worked clearly better for scientific development. Once we introduced the Journal Impact Factor as a public good benefit, which meant the distribution of an additional payoff for all authors who published in the journal (either a good or a bad paper), cooperation has become the most successful strategy of authors. In this case, editorial reputations became correlated with actual contributions to the provision of the pubic good. But as the production of high quality papers was still much more important for reputations than high quality reviews, the cooperative strategy that emerged as successful was investing high effort only in manuscript writing and not in reviewing. As a consequence, cooperation has been observed in scientific production, but peer review has just added random noise to this development, which raises doubts of its use \cite{Neff2006} and concerns about the use of public money.

At the end, we were successful in demonstrating in a simple model the puzzling motivational problem of peer review. We highlighted that it is not easy to find the way out of this puzzle. We showed that a high-value of the public good of science maintains scientific development. Reputational systems that are heavily building on author contributions might be partially sucessful, especially if the reputational hierarchy is directly used for selecting between similarly rated submissions. These mechanisms, however, will not help to sustain the efficiency of peer review. Paradoxically, mechanisms that are able to induce some level of high-quality reviews are building on reciprocity, and in practice they are often associated with impartiality, old-boyism, the emergence of invisible colleges, the Matthew effect, the conservative bias, and the stratification of science.

We plan to extend our simple model towards studying multiple journals that compete for success with each other. This extension allows for the evolution of editorial strategies in a straightforward way and in parallel to theoretical studies that highlight how group selection can ensure higher cooperation \cite{Traulsen2006,Nowak2006}, is expected to lead to better reviewer performance.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaArXiv


Crank the `awesome` dial to maximum. Meet your All Mountain summer-weight playmate. In designing the AMS we lightened the weight of the organic canvas from 10.4 to 6.2oz, and added stretch. Red bar-tac stitch accents for pops of attitude. Includes all MK shorts signature features: inseam action gusset, hidden right pocket and angled front pockets, triple-stitched seams, grosgrain-lined waistband and extra bar-tac reinforcements.


Hi. Hope your enjoying your Sunday. It's sunny here today, which always makes everyone feel good. Today we are celebrating our Granddaughter, Megan's 12th Birthday. Her actual birthday is tomorrow, (12 on the 12th!). She was born on Easter Sunday and what a gift she has been. Happy Birthday Sweetie, Nana and Papa love you very much!
The image is a digital image from Mo Manning. I chose this one because Megan is always drawing or journaling. I colored her with Copics. I added the little black kitty to the scene because they have recently added Stormy to their family.
a perfect young girls card!!
What a sweet card for your Granddaugter! I am sure that she love it!
LOVE the colours you've chosen for this fabulous card - it's obviously made with a LOT of love for a special young miss!


812 DHgate rhinestone prom dress train coupons - instant savings! With DHgate.com coupons, promos & sales, you can save more money on shopping Weddings & Events. Enjoy free shipping and exclusive deals prom dress products. Save more on your favorite rhinestone prom dress train,Evening Dresses and Celebrity Dresses with an exclusive payless coupons. Shop cheaper items online now.


I love to preach the Gospel and I write Gospel songs and sing. I love to read and play the piano and I love to meet new people.
Hello my dear,how are you doing today,hope fine.I am Fatima by name,i am well pleased to contact you on my search for a good relationship,to me, age, distance, or color do not matter,rather what i valued most is the understanding and love that will exist between us.So in a special manner,i will like us to further our communication, for us to know each other well.Please you can write to me on my email address ( Fatimafat33@yahoo.in ) for me to give you more of my pictures,and also tell you more about me,and i believe we can move from here.Awaiting for your mail soon.
Promote your primary business for FREE plus make an extra $88,000 asap and get over $7,500 in Secret FREE Resources..
*Stop Waiting On Affiliate Checks……Get Paid Instantly…….
*Would you like to learn how to turn $130 into a $1,500 to $10,000 or more per month income GUARANTEED?
*Would you like to receive unlimited $100 daily and monthly recurring payments?
******SPECIAL FREE BONUS # 1 from Mark Anthony Wilson Once you join EZ Wealth Network , I will provide you with a " Simplified Blueprint for Success Marketing Guide" that will show you how to make an extra $88,000 as soon as possible.
Includes a Wealth Building guide that shows you how to make money GUARANTEED.
Get Free Products and Services worth over $7,500 in over 100 categories. 100% satisfaction GUARANTEED….


text:
Meet Bale, the Therapy dog Who Shares Happiness Every Day!
As we celebrate Bale's 5th Birthday this week, we wanted to share with you Bale's story over the past few years he has been Harry's dedicated Therapy dog. He has been a wonderful companion to have alongside his brother, Arthur, and sister, Grace, as he has such a caring, loving and affectionate personality which brings smiles and joy to everyone in the room. So, in short, the perfect Therapy Dog!
Bale has been working as a Therapy Dog from 10 weeks of age and has excelled in his training since the very beginning! Since Bale arrived in his forever home, he was specifically trained to meet Harry's needs - assisting with toileting, sleeping, anxiety and distractions.
And Bale did just that, providing comfort and companionship to reduce the feelings of loneliness and isolation that often come with many learning difficulties and autism. Bale has been a loving companion to Harry and has helped him to the point where he is able to function on his own for the majority of the day.
Over the years Bale has been a constant source of support for Harry and has helped inspire independence with eating, dressing, hygiene routines whilst keeping Harry safe inside and outside the house. For us, Bale's biggest influence has been with enhancing Harry's communication - we went from having a non-verbal child to a little man who doesn't stop chatting. Harry still hasn't developed total communicative language and his processing of language is significantly longer than a typically developing child, but he's progressing further than we ever imagined he would do.
Once Bale's journey started with assisting Harry, he still had so much love to share, so it was a natural step for him when he realised this was something, he could do to help others in a similar situation. Every family's journey through life is different, add in Autism and it can become a pretty scary place at times.
Dogs have destinies too, and it seems being a Therapy Dog is Bale's calling! Bale has continued training and is going out into the community to spend most of his working day's visiting schools and residentials, assisting many other children and adults living with physical and learning differences as well as emotional and mental health challenges. There is absolutely no doubt that Bale makes an impact on their lives with every interaction. If you wish to have a visit from one of our Therapy dogs please click here.
Whilst he is still out in the community and providing comfort and support to both Harry and many others, he is also enjoying meeting all his other buddies joining the Bale's Buddies team and loves helping us train them to be just like him, the perfect Therapy dog!
We wish Bale a huge Happy 5th Birthday and look forward to making lots of new memories and enhancing lives by assisting others dealing with autism and learning difficulties.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
BEN ARCHBOLD – WHAT YOU DOING/PLAY
NewsReviewsNewsReviews January 11, 2014
Artist : Ben Archbold
Track Name : What You Doing / Play
Remixer : Nick Hook
Carlo Gambino - Open House (January)
Label : Little Gremlin Music
Cat No : LGM006
Release : 24.02.2014
Genre : Progressive
Review by Andy Howarth
Ben's back with a new 4 tracker on his Little Gremlin imprint. I've reviewed his material before, and whilst it's clear he still has work to do if he's to break through to the upper echelons of recognition, he's definitely on the right track. Putting his productions out on his own label do give him the freedom to release at will, but the removal of the 'quality control' aspect that's provided by submitting it to the scrutiny of a third party could prove to be a hindrance in future. Is that the case at the moment? Possibly too early to tell, but as productions go, I will definitely say that i've heard worse.
Back to the matter at hand, his new EP entitled 'What You Doing' showcases two versions of a new original production, as well as a couple of renditions of his track PlayHouse, as reviewed earlier last year on his Sampler EP. The title track marries a dissected reverbed vocal with a fluffy summertime key arrangement. It's nicely patched together, and the introduction of backing chords do lend it a dab of dramatics as it steadily builds towards it's crescendo, even if i'm not entirely sold on the church-like organ arrangement that's thrown into the mix during the second half. It's a decent tune on the whole, albeit not a particularly memorable one. The dub mix dispenses with the key arrangement, and in my opinion, it's all the better for it. Head for the dub version out of the two.
B-side track PlayHouse is more of the same. Pleasantly inoffensive Progressive that's easy on the ears, although somewhat forgettable. However, Nick Hook has been drafted in on remix detail and he's come up with a solid sun-drenched House affair that will appease terraces across the land (even though it's perhaps a bit early to be discussing outdoor parties). A chunky percussion and kick combination groove away alongside a techy bassline, and the filters roll back on the piano chords as the bulk of the track begins to work its magic. The whole ensemble works very nicely, and whilst it is slightly reminiscent of some of the earlier output of Subliminal, I rather like it. If you're more 'Defected In The House' than 'Drumcode Warehouse Party', get this added to your crate… you'll love it.
by Andy Howarth
Andy Howarth
Born of the Oxfordshire countryside, Andy has always preferred the quaint aspects of life around a historic city to the hustle and bustle of places like London or Birmingham. That said, the desire to satisfy his thirst for live music has led to him fleeing the tranquility of rural life on a regular basis, in favour of regions where the nightlife doesn't have to come to an abrupt end at 3am.
Happy new year everyone and welcome to 2021! Well 2020 is year most of us…
There's an art to a good warm-up, it's a skill which is rarely passed on…
For 23 years, since they disappeared from sight after burning one million pounds in a…
We are always looking for writers / contributors from around the world that want to…
SAMA' ABDULHADI, the 30-year old Palestinian electronic musician and DJ, has been released on bail…


text:
Edge of Paradise announce new studio album The Unknown; premiere video for lead single "My Method Your Madness"
Official press release:
Los Angeles based Edge Of Paradise have announced the upcoming release of their new studio album, The Unknown on September 17, 2021. Today, the band has also released a new single and video from the album, "My Method Your Madness". Watch the video here:
Frontwoman Margarita Monet says of the new single:
"'My Method Your Madness', is a super charged, heavy, and exhilarating track! Lyrically, it is exploring whether our choices have a rippling effect that travel far beyond our reality. Do we exist throughout endless dimensions all at the same time? Maybe nothing matters at all! But whatever the case, we're on an epic adventure, trying to keep control of this journey, through reality as we know it."
The Unknown is Edge Of Paradise's fourth studio album, coming on the heels of their well-received third album, and Frontiers Music SRL debut, Universe. The band teamed up with renowned producer Howard Benson (Halestorm, My Chemical Romance, Seether, etc.) who, together with Mike Plotnikoff (Halestorm, Three Days Grace), and Neil Sanderson (Three Days Grace) helped the band craft their biggest sounding album yet. Add in mixing and mastering by Jacob Hansen (Amaranthe, Volbeat, Pretty Maids) and you have a fool proof recipe for a sonically stunning album. The Unknown builds upon where Universe left off, developing Edge Of Paradise's overall symphonic and metallic sound while bringing it to the next level. Gigantic hooks paired with monolithic guitar riffs in a spacious sea of symphonic sounds will immediately grab listeners and whisk them away on the band's sonic, and lyrical, journey. Benson says:
"After hearing the first few tracks Mike Plotnikoff had produced for the album, Neil [Sanderson] and I were drawn to them because of their hooky, progressive metal chops and Margarita's soaring intense vocals! We decided to see if they were interested in a partnership with our new company, J&J Records, so we partnered with the band and Frontiers. We completed the record along with Mike and produced a modern metal classic."
Edge of Paradise's founding members, singer Margarita Monet and guitarist Dave Bates, have found their perfect partners in crime with the addition of drummer Jamie Moreno and bassist Ricky Bonazza. The band, tighter than ever, is ready to blow everyone away once they are back on the road with this stunning new music in tow. Current plans are for the band to tour extensively through 2022 in support of The Unknown as well, with touring announcements coming up soon.
After the band's debut album Mask, released independently in 2012, the band released their sophomore album Immortal Waltz in 2015, produced by the legendary Michael Wagener (Dokken, Accept, Skid Row). In March 2017, Edge Of Paradise released a five song EP, Alive, which was produced by Chuck Johnson (Korn, Slipknot) and mixed by Jay Ruston, Mike Plotnikoff, and Michael Wagener. The band then signed with Frontiers Music Srl for the release of their third album, Universe (November 2019) which saw them achieve well over one million streams on Spotify for the album's lead single, the title track. The band also enjoyed a successful European tour with Sonata Arctica at the end of 2019. While home preparing for multiple tours to support the album in 2020, the global pandemic hit and the band's touring plans were sidelined. When it became evident that touring likely wouldn't be in the cards, the band set themselves to writing music for what would ultimately become their fourth album, The Unknown.
Pre-order/save The Unknown on CD/color vinyl/digital here.
Watch the previously released music video for the single "Digital Paradise" here.
The Unknown track listing:
"Digital Paradise"
"My Method Your Madness"
"You Touch You Die"
"Leaving Earth"
"Bound To The Rhythm"
"My Method Your Madness" (Industrial Remix) [Bonus Track]
Tags: Edge Of Paradise Frontiers Music SRL Howard Benson Mike Plotnikoff My Method Your Madness Neil Sanderson The Unknown
← Mordian debuts "January Moon" lyric video Saving Abel welcome back Jared Weeks; announce Shades of Grace – Twenty Year Songs EP →
Edge of Paradise release "Tidal Wave" lyric video
Seven Spires premiere new song "The Forgotten Name" feat. Threads of Fate's Jon Pyres
Edge of Paradise premiere video for new track "False Idols"
Anette Olzon shares new single "Fantastic Fanatic"


text:
The best Xbox Game Pass games to play now
Xbox Game Pass has quickly become one of our favorite add-ons for the Xbox Series X and Xbox Series S. But Microsoft's game-subscription service isn't just for next-gen consoles; it also lets you play hundreds of beloved games on Xbox One, PC, iOS, Android and Web browsers.
A platform is only as good as its games, though, and Xbox Game Pass has a lot from which to choose: more than 300 titles, to be precise. With so much on offer, it can be hard to sort through the sheer volume of games available.
That's why the Tom's Guide staff has selected our 10 favorite games on the service, from action-packed epics, to chill simulations, to classic strategy experiences, and everything in-between. And if you don't like these 10 games, there are hundreds more for you to try.
(Image credit: Playground Games)
The latest entry in the Forza Horizon series moves the action to Mexico, where you can expect lots of gorgeous vistas, intense races and tricky challenges. Forza Horizon 5 is perhaps the best game in the franchise so far, thanks to its inspired setting, tight gameplay and huge selection of cars. Whether you want to race around the country with friends online or simply work your way through the campaign at your own pace, there's something here for every racing fan to enjoy. — Marshall Honorof
Gears of War: Ultimate Edition
(Image credit: Supergiant Games)
One of the best games on the Nintendo Switch is, perhaps not surprisingly, also one of the best games on Xbox Game Pass. Hades is a fast-paced rogue-lite, where you take control of mythological demigod Zagreus. As the son of Hades and prince of the underworld, Zagreus wants to escape his father's domain, which he can only do by conquering four dangerous, unpredictable biomes — and dying again and again along the way. The gameplay is tight, the progression is satisfying and the story is surprisingly gripping, since you'll learn a little more with each new run.
(Image credit: Xbox Game Studios)
Halo Infinite is the latest entry in Xbox's foundational first-person shooter series. Now that the reviews are in and the fan base has had a chance to settle, the game is somewhere in the middle of the pack. The story doesn't pack quite the same punch as Halo 2, but the open-world mechanics inject some new life into the series, and the gunplay is as tight as ever. Since Halo Infinite is the newest game in the series, this is where you'll also find the majority of the spirited multiplayer community. Just be aware that if you want fancy cosmetics, you'll have to either pay real money or grind a lot. — Marshall Honorof
Star Wars: Jedi: Fallen Order
Viva Piñata
(Image credit: Rare)
Viva Piñata isn't just a chill simulation; it's also an excellent way to test backwards compatibility on Xbox Series X/S. This game originally debuted on the Xbox 360 back in 2006, but even more than a decade later, there's still nothing else quite like in on the market. You play as, essentially, a piñata rancher, collecting and breeding more than 60 species of the candy-filled creatures. You can customize your farm and explore the island, both of which could conceivably keep you busy for dozens of hours. Viva Piñata was a cult hit back in the day, and it's well worth revisiting now.
Xbox Game Pass isn't just a place for hit games from big-budget studios; it's also a great place to discover indie fare, such as What Remains of Edith Finch. In this first-person adventure game, you play as the titular character, who returns to her isolated family home in the Pacific Northwest to uncover the truth behind a deadly family curse. The game is weird, atmospheric, and a little spooky — but also heartfelt, funny and occasionally touching. As Edith learns more about her unusual relatives, players experience a variety of artistic and gameplay styles, from a heroic high fantasy kingdom to an imaginative underwater ballet. The game is short, but the story will stick with you for a long time to come. — Marshall Honorof
#Xbox #Game #Pass #games #play
Phil Spencer: "We will continue to work to better meet expectations" after Starfield and Redfall delays
AI Could Monitor Drivers More Closely for Danger
LG OLED TVs are brighter and more colorful than Samsung QD-OLED — here's the proof
Will iPadOS 16 Finally Turn It Into a Desktop Alternative?
Best cheap gaming chair deals in April 2022
Google Pixel Watch launch looks imminent — here's why
Stardew Valley has sold over 20 million copies and we're not even surprised
Netflix is getting these classic Nickelodeon shows — including Kenan & Kel and Ned's Declassified
Today's Wordle answer and hints — solution #329, Saturday, May 14


Last Christmas was the Tablet Christmas. I say this because many people rushed to get themselves one as a gift for their year's hard work and for their friends. Indeed, a tablet was among the most popular single gift that people gave out last Christmas. This can be attributed to the rising popularity of the Tablet Phenomenon in the year 2012 and a release of cutting edge Tabs by most technology companies that made competition stiff and led to a drop in its prices. The choice for tablets is being dominated by the more cost-effective and smaller tablets. The smaller tablets are preferred because they just seem right in your hand when compared to the 10″ tablets.
This is the newest iPad in the market. It is the 4th generation of the full-sized iPad, bringing you a tablet that is now twice as powerful. There has been no noticeable visual change to the iPad except the addition of the lightning port.
Out of the smaller tablets, the iPad has the biggest screen with 7.9 inches. It mirrors the iPhone 5 with it's chamfered edges and anodised coated back.
Early on the iPad mini drew much criticism for two things – it's price and the lack of a retina display. Reviews have since come in saying that the device was great to look at and felt at home in your hand.
It's the only tablet that comes with a "pen" that can be used to write and draw on the screen. You can Draw, write, edit photos and share with the intuitive S Pen.
The Note 10.1 runs Google's Android software, giving it access to a wide array of apps originally written for smartphones.
It is Microsoft's first tablet which runs Windows RT, a version of Windows 8 adapted for tablets. It comes with a version of Microsoft's Office suite and the ability to connect to wireless printers and some other peripherals, like USB drives. The covers for it have functional keyboard printed on the inside.
Vincent Maraba is studying for his Msc. in Telecommunication Innovation and Development at Strathmore University, Kenya. He won the 2012 Safaricom Appstar challenge finance category with his new innovation, PesaTracker, an Android app that allows users to track, analyse and backup their M-Pesa transactions. M-Pesa is an award winning, mobile-phone based money transfer and micro financing service for Safaricom and Vodacom, the largest mobile network operator in Kenya and Tanzania. It allows users to deposit, transfer and withdraw funds via text message.


text:
Please contact us: info@yuvaartsproject.org
Tamara Menon – Founder
Tamara Menon has worked for over seven years in the music industry – ranging from performing arts to community facilitation. Her work with vulnerable youth through Songbound and Prerana in Mumbai, India, led her to pursue further education in Canada. This brought her to Wilfrid Laurier University where she is now studying Community Music. It was here in KW where she garnered the inspiration for the YUVA Arts Project. Her interactions with the Laurier community quickly spread to forming meaningful partnerships with MT Space, Neruda Arts, Silence, and local artists alike.
Olivia Maveal – Project Coordinator
Olivia Maveal is thrilled to be Co-project Coordinator for the Yuva Arts Project. In most recent years, her presence in the world of music has been fierce. Her interest in musical entertainment quickly turned into a pursuit for the betterment of her community. She is currently pursuing her final year in Wilfrid Laurier's Music Therapy Undergraduate program, and is looking forward to continuing her journey with Yuva.
Lisette Pineau – Project Coordinator
Lisette Pineau has always felt a pull towards the arts. With a background in performing arts from Randolph College, and going into her final year of Community Music at Laurier, she is thrilled to be a part of such an incredible team. As co-project coordinator, she is looking forward to the development of future projects.
Sara Pickard – Social Media Coordinator
Sara Pickard is thrilled to be involved in the YUVA Arts Project as the Social Media Coordinator. After several years of classical music education, they are currently completing a degree in Music Therapy at Laurier. With a passionate interest in both the arts and community building, they are honoured to have the chance to continue working on this unique project.
Giorgia Benazzi – Team Member
OUR MENTOR
Dr. Gerard Yun – Mentor
Ensemble director, multi-instrumentalist, composer, conductor, and scholar Dr. Gerard Yun brings together intensive preparation in Western classical musics (masters and doctoral degrees in choral/orchestral conducting) with traditional training in cultural music traditions including the Japanese Shakuhachi, Asian Overtone Singing, West-African Kora, Ghanian Drumming, South African Choral Singing, Australian Didgeridoo, and Native American flute. Yun works to bridge cultures through community music practices, facilitation, and forms. As Assistant Professor of Community Music at Wilfrid Laurier University, he teaches undergraduate and graduate courses in Community Music, Critical Studies, and Global Citizenship including specialized courses in Music and Social Justice and Global Sacred Musics. His interests include intercultural music ethics, improvisation in intercultural and interfaith community settings, and contemplative musics as community. He is an active ally in promoting healthy musical interactions between indigenous and settler cultures. In 2016 he received the Laurier Centre for Music in the Community Award for Recognition for contributions that enhance the quality and vitality of music in the community.


New York, NY : Touchstone, an imprint of Simon & Schuster, Inc., 2016.
556 pages : genealogical tables ; 24 cm.
Henry VIII, King of England, 1491-1547-Fiction.
Margaret, Queen, consort of James IV, King of Scotland, 1489-1541-Fiction.
Mary, Queen, consort of Louis XII, King of France, 1496-1533-Fiction.
From the #1 New York Times bestselling author behind the upcoming Starz original series The White Princess , a gripping new Tudor story featuring King Henry VIII's sisters Mary and Margaret, along with Katherine of Aragon, vividly revealing the pivotal roles the three queens played in Henry VIII's kingdom.
When Katherine of Aragon is brought to the Tudor court as a young bride, the oldest princess, Margaret, takes her measure. With one look, each knows the other for a rival, an ally, a pawn, destined--with Margaret's younger sister Mary--to a sisterhood unique in all the world. The three sisters will become the queens of England, Scotland, and France.
Philippa Gregory was born in Nairobi, Kenya on January 9, 1954. She received a B.A. in history at Sussex University in 1982 and a Ph.D. in 18th-century literature from the University of Edinburgh in 1984. She has taught at numerous universities and was made a fellow of Kingston University in 1994.
Her historical novels include: Wideacre, The Queen's Fool, The Virgin's Lover, The Constant Princess, The Boleyn Inheritance, The Other Queen, The White Queen, The Red Queen, The Lady of the Rivers and The White Princess. She has also written several contemporary fiction works including Perfectly Correct, The Little House and Zelda's Cut. She adapted her novel A Respectable Trade, about the slave trade in England, into a four-part series for BBC television. Her script won an award from the Committee for Racial Equality. She won the Feminist Book Fortnight Award in 1990 and the Romantic Novelist of the Year Award in 2002. Her book, The Other Boleyn Girl, won the Parker Romantic Novel of the Year award and was adapted into a major feature film in 2008 starring Natalie Portman and Scarlett Johansson. The White Queen was adapted into an original cable series on the Starz nertwork in 2013 starring Max Irons and Rebecca Ferguson. Her title The Kings Curse made the New York Times bestseller list in 2014. Her title, The Taming of the Queen, made the New York Times bestseller list in 2015. Her latest bestseller is Three Sisters, Three Queens.
Gregory also writes children's books, is a regular contributor to newspapers and magazines, a frequent broadcaster for radio and television, and runs a small charity that builds wells in schoolyards in Gambia.
Actor Amato, who has read three of Gregory's previous titles as audio editions, is terrific in Gregory's latest historical novel set in Tudor England. She deftly portrays the passions, ambitions, and catastrophes of three sisters from childhood through adolescence to queen-hood. She takes listeners along on the roller-coaster ride from ecstasy to agony and back again for the three 16th-century royals: Queen Katherine (first wife of Henry VIII), Queen Margaret (sister of Henry, married off at 16 to James IV of Scotland) and Queen Mary (sister of Henry and third wife of Louis XII of France). Amato's portrayal of protagonist Margaret is vivid and compelling. She also creates captivating voices and personalities for their husbands and lovers, as well as their infamous brother, Henry. Gregory's historical novels are sheer entertainment; the combination of Gregory and Amato is pure pleasure. A Touchstone hardcover. (Aug.) © Copyright PWxyz, LLC. All rights reserved.
Katherine of Aragon, Queen of England (Henry VIII's first wife); Margaret, Queen of Scotland (Henry's older sister); and Mary, Queen of France (his younger sister), are sisters and enemies. Stories of Tudor England always include passion, intrigue, and murder, and Gregory tells this one mostly from the perspective of Queen Margaret and brings the Tudor period to life with Henry as a secondary (although important) character. Bianca Amato is an excellent narrator; her perfect British accent keeps the listener spellbound until the end. Her narration maintains the tension of the queens' stories and portrays their lives as opulent but limited because they were female. Verdict This lengthy audiobook is highly recommended for public libraries with a demand for Gregory's novels or other historical fiction.-Michele Lauer-Bader, formerly with Half Hollow Hills Community Lib., Dix Hills, NY © Copyright 2017. Library Journals LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Media Source, Inc. No redistribution permitted.
Three Sisters, Three Queens BAYNARD'S CASTLE, LONDON, ENGLAND, NOVEMBER 1501 I am to wear white and green, as a Tudor princess. Really, I think of myself as the one and only Tudor princess, for my sister Mary is too young to do more than be brought in by her nurse at suppertime, and taken out again. I make sure Mary's nursemaids are quite clear that she is to be shown to our new sister-in-law, and then go. There is no profit in letting her sit up at the table, or gorge on crystallized plums. Rich things make her sick and if she gets tired she will bawl. She is only five years old, far too young for state occasions. Unlike me; I am all but twelve. I have to play my part in the wedding; it would not be complete without me. My lady grandmother, the king's mother, said so herself. Then she said something that I couldn't quite hear, but I know that the Scots lords will be watching me to see if I look strong and grown-up enough to be married at once. I am sure I am. Everyone says that I am a bonny girl, stocky as a Welsh pony, healthy as a milkmaid, fair, like my younger brother Harry, with big blue eyes. "You'll be next," she says to me with a smile. "They say that one wedding begets another." "I won't have to travel as far as Princess Katherine," I say. "I'll come home on visits." "You will." My lady grandmother's promise makes it a certainty. "You are marrying our neighbor, and you will make him our good friend and ally." Princess Katherine had to come all the way from Spain, miles and miles away. Since we are quarreling with France, she had to come by sea, and there were terrible storms and she was nearly wrecked. When I go to Scotland to marry the king, it will be a great procession from Westminster to Edinburgh of nearly four hundred miles. I shan't go by sea, I won't arrive sick and sopping wet, and I will come and go from my new home to London whenever I like. But Princess Katherine will never see her home again. They say she was crying when she first met my brother. I think that is ridiculous. And babyish as Mary. "Shall I dance at the wedding?" I ask. "You and Harry shall dance together," my lady grandmother rules. "After the Spanish princess and her ladies have shown us a Spanish dance. You can show her what an English princess can do." She smiles slyly. "We shall see who is best." "Me," I pray. Out loud I say: "A basse danse?" It is a slow grand grown-up dance which I do very well, actually more walking than dancing. "A galliard." I don't argue; nobody argues with my lady grandmother. She decides what happens in every royal household, in every palace and castle; my lady mother the queen just agrees. "We'll have to rehearse," I say. I can make Harry practice by promising him that everyone will be watching. He loves to be the center of attention and is always winning races and competing at archery and doing tricks on his pony. He is as tall as me, though he is only ten years old, so we look well together if he doesn't play the fool. I want to show the Spanish princess that I am just as good as the daughter of Castile and Aragon. My mother and father are a Plantagenet and a Tudor. Those are grand enough names for anyone. Katherine needn't think that we are grateful for her coming. I, for one, don't particularly want another princess at court. It is my lady mother who insists that Katherine visit us at Baynard's Castle before the wedding, and she is accompanied by her own court, who have come all the way from Spain--at our expense, as my father remarks. They enter through the double doors like an invading army, their clothes, their speech, their headdresses completely unlike ours and, at the center of it all, beautifully gowned, is the girl that they call the "infanta." This too is ridiculous, as she is fifteen and a princess, and I think that they are calling her "baby." I glance across at Harry to see if he will giggle if I make a face and say "ba-aby," which is how we tease Mary, but he is not looking at me. He is looking at her with goggle-eyes, as if he is seeing a new horse, or a piece of Italian armor, or something that he has set his heart on. I see his expression, and I realize that he is trying to fall in love with her, like a knight with a damsel in a story. Harry loves stories and ballads about impossible ladies in towers, or tied to rocks, or lost in woods, and somehow Katherine impressed him when he met her before her entry into London. Perhaps it was her ornate veiled litter, perhaps it was her learning, for she speaks three languages. I am so annoyed--I wish he was close enough for me to pinch him. This is exactly why no one younger than me should play a part in royal occasions. She is not particularly beautiful. She is three years older than me but I am as tall as her. She has light brown hair with a copper tinge to it, only a little darker than mine. This is, of course, irritating: who wants to be compared to a sister-in-law? But I can hardly see it, for she wears a high headpiece and a thick concealing veil. She has blue eyes like mine too, but very fair eyebrows and lashes; obviously, she's not allowed to color them in like I do. She has pale creamy skin, which I suppose is admirable. She is tiny: tiny waist pinched in by tight lacing so she can hardly breathe, tiny feet with the most ridiculous shoes I have ever seen, gold-embroidered toes and gold laces. I don't think that my lady grandmother would let me wear gold laces. It would be vanity and worldly show. I am sure that the Spanish are very worldly. I am sure that she is. I make certain that my thoughts don't show on my face as I examine her. I think she is lucky to come here, lucky to be chosen by my father to marry my elder brother Arthur, lucky to have a sister-in-law like me, a mother-in-law like my mother and--more than anything else--a grandmother-in-law like Lady Margaret Beaufort, who will make very sure that Katherine does not exceed her place which has been appointed by God. She curtseys and kisses my lady mother and, after her, my lady grandmother. This is how it should be; but she will soon learn that she had better please my lady grandmother before anybody. Then my lady mother nods to me and I step forward, and the Spanish princess and I curtsey together at the same time, to exactly the same depth, and she steps forward and we kiss on one cheek and then the other. Her cheeks are warm and I see that she is blushing, her eyes filling with tears as if she is missing her real sisters. I show her my stern look, just like my father when someone is asking him for money. I am not going to fall in love with her for her blue eyes and pretty ways. She need not imagine she is going to come into our English court and make us look fat and stupid. She is not at all rebuffed; she looks right back at me. Born and raised in a competitive court with three sisters, she understands rivalry. Worse, she looks at me as if she finds my stern look to be not at all chilling, perhaps even a little comical. That is when I know that this is not a young woman like my ladies-in-waiting who has to be pleasant to me whatever I do, or like Mary, who has to do whatever I say. This young woman is an equal, she will consider me, she might even be critical. I say in French: "You are welcome to England," and she replies in stilted English: "I am pleased to greet my sister." My lady mother lays herself out to be kind to this, her first, daughter-in-law. They talk together in Latin and I cannot follow what they are saying so I sit beside my mother and look at Katherine's shoes with the gold laces. My mother calls for music, and Harry and I start a round, an English country song. We are very tuneful and the court takes up the chorus and it goes round and round until people start to giggle and lose their places. But Katherine does not laugh. She looks as if she is never silly and merry like Harry and me. She is overly formal, of course, being Spanish. But I note how she sits--very still, and with her hands folded in her lap as if she were sitting for a portrait--and I think: actually, that looks rather queenly. I think I will learn to sit like that. My sister Mary is brought in to make her curtsey, and Katherine makes herself ridiculous by going down on her knees so their faces are level and she can hear her childish whisper. Of course Mary cannot understand a word of either Latin or Spanish, but she puts her arms around Katherine's neck and kisses her and calls her "thithter." "I am your sister," I correct her, giving her little hand a firm tug. "This lady is your sister-in-law. Can you say sister-in-law?" Of course, she can't. She lisps, and everyone laughs again and says how charming, and I say: "Lady Mother, shouldn't Mary be in bed?" Then everyone realizes how late it is and we all go out with bobbing torches to see Katherine leave, as if she were a queen crowned and not merely the youngest daughter of the King and Queen of Spain, and very lucky to marry into our family: the Tudors. She kisses everyone good night and when it is my turn, she puts her warm cheek to mine and says: "Good night, Sister" in that stupid accent, in her patronizing way. She draws back and sees my cross face and she gives a little ripple of laughter. "Oho!" she says, and pats my cheek as if my bad temper does not trouble her. This is a real princess, as naturally royal as my mother; this is the girl who will be Queen of England; and so I don't resent the pat, more like a caress. I find that I like her and dislike her, all together, all at once. "I hope you will be kind to Katherine," my mother says to me as we come out of her private chapel after Prime the next morning. "Not if she thinks she's going to come here and lord it over all of us," I say briskly. "Not if she thinks she is going to act as if she is doing us a favor. Did you see her shoelaces?" My mother laughs with genuine amusement. "No, Margaret. I did not see her shoelaces, nor did I ask you for your opinion of her. I told you of my hope: that you will be kind to her." "Of course," I say, looking down at my missal with the jeweled cover. "I hope that I am gracious to everyone." "She is far from her home and accustomed to a big family," my mother says. "She will certainly need a friend, and you might enjoy the company of an older girl. I had lots of sisters at home when I was growing up, and I value them, more and more every year. You too might find that your women friends are your truest friends, your sisters are the keepers of your memories and hopes for the future." "She and Arthur will stay here?" I ask. "They will live with us?" My mother rests her hand on my shoulder. "I wish they could stay; but your father thinks they should go to Arthur's principality and live at Ludlow." "What does my lady grandmother think?" My mother gives a little shrug. That means it has been decided. "She says the Prince of Wales must govern Wales." "You'll still have me at home." I put my hand over hers to keep her beside me. "I'll still be here." "I count on you," she says reassuringly. I have only one moment alone with my brother Arthur before the wedding. He walks with me in the long gallery. Below, we can hear the musicians striking up another dance, and the buzz of people drinking and chattering and laughing. "You don't have to bow so low to her," I say abruptly. "Her father and mother are new-come to their thrones just like our father. She has nothing to be so very proud of. They're no better than us. They're not an ancient line." He flushes. "You think her proud?" "Without reason." I heard my grandmother say exactly this to my lady mother so I know it is right. But Arthur argues. "Her parents conquered Spain and took it back from the Moors. They are the greatest crusaders in the world. Her mother is a queen militant. They have extraordinary wealth and own half of the unmapped world. Some grounds for pride there, surely?" "There's that, I suppose," I say begrudgingly. "But we are Tudors." "We are," he agrees with a little laugh. "But that doesn't impress everyone." "Of course it does," I say. "Especially now . . ." Neither of us says any more; we are both aware that there are many heirs to the English throne, dozens of Plantagenet boys, our mother's kinsmen, still living at our court, or run away to exile. Father has killed my mother's cousins in battles, and destroyed more than one pretender: he executed our cousin Edward two years ago. "Do you think her proud?" he challenges me. "Has she been rude to you?" I spread my hands in the gesture of surrender that my mother makes when she is told that my lady grandmother has overruled her. "Oh, she doesn't bother to talk to me, she has no interest in a mere sister. She is too busy being charming, especially to Father. Anyway, she can hardly speak English." "Isn't she just shy? I know that I am." "Why would she be shy? She's going to be married, isn't she? She's going to be Queen of England, isn't she? She's going to be your wife. Why would she be anything but completely delighted with herself?" Arthur laughs and hugs me. "D'you think that there is nothing better in the world but to be Queen of England?" "Nothing," I say simply. "She should realize it and be grateful." "But you will be Queen of Scotland," he points out. "That's grand too. You have that to look forward to." "I do, and I certainly won't ever be anxious and homesick or lonely." "King James will be a lucky man to have such a contented bride." That is the closest I get to warning him that Katherine of Aragon is looking down her long Spanish nose at us. But I nickname her Katherine of Arrogant and Mary hears me say it, since she is everywhere, always eavesdropping on her elders and betters. She catches it up, and it makes me laugh every time I hear her and see my mother's quick frown and quiet correction. The wedding passes off very brilliantly, arranged by my lady grandmother, of course, to show the world just how wealthy and grand we are now. Father has spent a fortune on a week of jousting and celebration and feasting, the fountains flow with wine, they roast oxen in Smithfield Market, and the people tear up the wedding carpet so that they can all have a little piece of Tudor glory on their sideboards. This is my first chance to see a royal wedding and I inspect the bride from the top of her beautiful white lace headdress, which they call a mantilla, to the heels of her embroidered shoes. She looks pretty, I cannot deny that, but there is no cause for everyone to behave as if she is a miracle of beauty. Her long hair is the color of gold and brass, and falls around her shoulders nearly to her waist. She is as dainty as a little picture, which makes me feel awkward, as if my feet and hands are too big. It would be petty and a sin to think badly of her because of this, but I admit to myself that it will be better for everyone when she conceives a son and a Tudor heir, disappears into confinement for months, and comes out fat. As soon as the feast is over, the double doors at the end of the hall open and a great float comes in, pulled by dancers in Tudor green. It is a huge castle, beautifully decorated with eight ladies inside, the principal dancer dressed as a Spanish princess, and on each turret there is a boy from the chapel choir singing her praises. It is followed by a float dressed as a sailing ship with billowing sails of peach silk, manned by eight knights. The ship docks at the castle but the ladies refuse to dance, so the knights attack the castle with pretend jousting until the ladies throw them paper flowers and then step down. The castle and the ship are hauled away and they all dance together. Katherine of Arrogant claps her hands and bows her thanks to my father the king for the elaborate compliment. I am so furious that I wasn't given a part in this that I cannot bring myself to smile. I catch her looking at me, and I feel certain she is taunting me with the honor that my father is doing her. She is the center of everything, it's quite sickening in the middle of dinner. Then it is Arthur's turn. He dances with one of my mother's ladies, and then Harry and I take to the floor for our galliard. It is a fast, bright dance with music as tempting as a village jig. The musicians take it at a quick pace and Harry and I are excellent partners, well matched and well trained. Neither of us misses a step, nobody could do it better. But in one part when I am circling, arms outstretched, dancing a little step on the spot, my feet and ankles shown by my swirling gown, and all eyes are on me--at that exact moment--Harry chooses to step to one side and throw off his bulky jacket and then spring back to my side in his billowing linen shirt. Father and Mother applaud and he looks flushed and so boyishly handsome that everyone cheers him. I keep smiling, but I am completely furious, and when we hold hands in the dance, I pinch his palm as hard as I can. Of course, I am not at all surprised by this scene stealing; I half expected him to do something to draw all eyes to him. It's been killing him all day to have to play second son to Arthur. He escorted Katherine up the aisle of the abbey, but had to hand her over at the top and step back and be quite forgotten. Now, following Arthur's restrained dance, he gets his chance to shine. If I could stamp on his toe I would, but I catch Arthur's eye and he gives me a broad wink. We are both thinking the same thing: Harry is always indulged and everyone but Mother and Father can see what we see: a boy spoiled beyond enduring. The dance comes to an end and Harry and I bow together, hand in hand, making a pretty picture as we always do. I glance across at the Scots lords, who are watching me intently. They, at least, have no interest in Harry. One of them, James Hamilton, is the King of Scotland's own kinsman. He will be glad to see that I will be a merry queen; his cousin, King James, likes dancing and feasting and will meet his match in me. I see the lords exchange a few quick words and I feel certain that they will agree the next wedding, my wedding, will be soon. And Harry will not be dancing at that and stealing the show, for I will not allow it, and Katherine will have to wear her hair hidden under her hood and it will be me who stands and welcomes the ship with peach silk sails and all the dancers. Neither Harry nor I are allowed to stay to the end of the feast, the escorting of the princess to bed, and the prayers over the wedding bed. I think it is very wrong and bad mannered to treat us like children. My grandmother sends us to our rooms and though I glance over to my mother, expecting her to say that Harry must go but I can stay up longer, she is blandly looking aside. Always, it is my grandmother's word that is law: she is the hanging judge, my mother only grants the occasional rare royal pardon. So we make our bows and curtseys to the king and to my mother and to my lady grandmother, and to darling Arthur and Katherine of Arrogant, and then we have to go, dawdling as slowly as we dare, from the bright rooms where the white wax candles are burning down as if they cost no more than tallow, and the musicians are playing as if they are going to go on all night. "I am going to have a wedding just like this," Harry says as we go up the stairs. "Not for years yet," I say to irritate him. "But I shall be married very soon." When I get to my room I kneel at my prie-dieu and, though I had intended to pray for Arthur's long life and happiness, and remind God of His special debt to the Tudors, I find I can only pray that the Scottish ambassadors tell the king to send for me at once, for I want a marriage feast as grand as this one, and a wardrobe of clothes as good as Katherine of Arrogant's, and shoes--I will have hundreds and hundreds of pairs of shoes, I swear it, and every one of them will have embroidered toes and gold laces. Excerpted from Three Sisters, Three Queens by Philippa Gregory All rights reserved by the original copyright owners. Excerpts are provided for display purposes only and may not be reproduced, reprinted or distributed without the written permission of the publisher.


When it comes to lighting, much of the balance is reduce to the style of the accessories used. And the context in which they are placed. However, before reaching that point, it is essential to take into account the strength and tonality of the led porch light. What kind of spotlights are we using? Fluorescent, LED or halogen? What level of power are we employing?
Power is a very important point: if it is too low you will be suffering from lack of light. If it is too high you will have to wear sunglasses at night to read a book. Of course we must not neglect the importance of the mixture of style and also design. Once you have determined the power of the light, you will have a clearer idea of the led porch light style you require.
It is worth mentioning that power and strength can be very difficult to distinguish regardless of style and design. What works for this lamp will not do it in a more modern or less exposed style. In this case you will have to consider led porch light style. And the power level as a whole, do not lose sight of it. If you are not sure what style or design to choose. Approach a professional for tips and some tricks.


The new Galleria department store is located in the Gwanggyo, a new urban development close to Seoul. The site is at an intersection between nature and city, situated between the Suwon Gwanggyo Lake Park with natural hills, forest and trekking routes and the colorless and anonymous buildings of the urban area. Drawing upon the location's rural scenery, the building evokes a sculpted stone, forming a visual anchor for new downtown Gwanggyo.
렘 콜하스가 설계한 '광교 한화갤러리아 백화점'의 공사가 한창이다.
광교사거리에 위치한 대상지는 명실공히 광교의 최중심부다. 신분당선 광교중앙역과 버스환승센터가 인접한 교통의 요충지이며, 이러한 장점을 살린 대규모 복합단지가 현재 조성 중이다. 바로 옆에 위치한 경기 남부 MICE 산업의 허브인 수원컨벤션센터는 지난 29일 개관했고, 호텔과 아쿠아리움 등의 상업시설도 내년 하반기까지 차례로 문을 열 예정이다. 그뿐만 아니라 국내 최대 규모인 65만평의 아름다운 호수공원이 바로 뒤에 자리한다는 점은 무엇보다 큰 입지상의 강점이다.
이렇듯 도시적 풍경과 자연적 풍경의 교차점에 위치하는 광교 갤러리아는 광교신도시의 새로운 랜드마크이자, 엔터테인먼트와 문화시설이 결합된 새로운 유형의 쇼핑 공간을 목표로 하고 있다. 기존의 갤러리아 백화점은 철저한 프레스티지 마케팅으로 고급 소비시장을 공략해 왔는데, 광교점은 이 원칙은 유지하면서도 보다 많은 이들이 즐길 수 있는 공공시설을 함께 조성함으로써 경기 중남부 상권을 주도하겠다는 전략이다.
광교신도시의 랜드마크를 꿈꾸는 건물답게 규모부터가 압도적이다. 지하 6층, 지상 12층, 연면적은 약 14만 m2에 달한다. 하지만 거대한 규모에 비해 형태는 단순하다. 정사각형에 가까운 박스 형태인데, 군더더기 없는 매스로 인해 오히려 건물의 규모감과 무게감은 극대화된다.
At the forefront of the premium retail market in Korea since the nineties, the Gwanggyo Galleria continues Hanwha Galleria's forward-looking approach to retail, introducing public programs throughout all levels of the department store, with retail facilities combined with leisure and culture.
The public program is articulated by an exposed loop, carved into the monolithic stone volume, which runs from the main entrance at the outdoor plaza to the roof, infiltrating the various areas of the building. The loop offers a new performance opportunity for the department store. A sequence of cascading terraces combine traditional retail with new experiences. The typical interior life of the department store is revealed to the city by this loop – a multifaceted glass sculpture – while also providing new vantage points onto the surrounding neighborhood. The loop invites the curiosity of the flaneur; as a unique encounter between retail, nature and public space, it averts the predictability of shopping.
The building expresses natural layers of sediment, its figurative motif, a natural stone mosaic pattern, brings texture and color, in contrast to typical façades, while blending seamlessly with the natural surroundings.
외관 디자인은 더 파격적이다. 퇴적층 무늬의 외피는 매스를 감싸고, 기하학적 유리 조각들을 연결해서 만든 투명한 띠는 다시 그 외피를 관통한다. 마치 거대한 지층의 단면 사이에 반짝이는 수정이 박혀있는 모습이다.
1층 주 출입구에서부터 시작하는 유리 띠는 건물을 나선형으로 감싸 올라가면서 옥상까지 이어진다. 띠 안쪽 공간은 계단식 테라스로 조성되며, 다양한 프로그램이 삽입된다. 어느 층에는 정원이 조성되고 또 어느 층에는 공공공간이 배치되는 식이다. 이렇게 유리 띠는 전 층을 관통하면서 평범한 상업시설에서와는 다른 경험을 선사한다. 더불어 건물 안에서 벌어지는 일들은 띠를 통해 바깥으로 드러나, 행인들의 호기심을 불러일으키며 이들의 발길을 이끌 것이다.
광교 갤러리아는 작년 하반기부터 골조공사를 시작해 현재는 대략적인 형태가 완성된 상태이며, 현재는 외장재 공사에 돌입했다. 올해 말 완공, 내년 초 오픈 예정이다.