Lingolol

petersuber"<a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/Delta" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#Delta</a> moves toward eliminating set prices in favor of <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/AI" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#AI</a> that determines how much you personally will pay for a ticket." <a href="https://fortune.com/2025/07/16/delta-moves-toward-eliminating-set-prices-in-favor-of-ai-that-determines-how-much-you-personally-will-pay-for-a-ticket/" rel="nofollow noopener" translate="no" target="_blank">https://fortune.com/2025/07/16/delta-moves-toward-eliminating-set-prices-in-favor-of-ai-that-determines-how-much-you-personally-will-pay-for-a-ticket/</a> PS: Lots to hate here. But suppose the model spreads to other industries. (Yes, this is sci-fi for now. But let your imagination run free.) Imagine that academic <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/publishers" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#publishers</a> used this model to set <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/APCs" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#APCs</a>. What would AI tools infer from your institutional affiliation (about available resources), first name (about gender), surname (about ethnicity), submitted manuscript (about guesstimated quality), and past publications (about specialization, reputation, impact)? What odd variables would it factor in, such as the number of Trump-banned words (for political protection) or the number of citations to that journal (for <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/JIF" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#JIF</a>)? How would it use all this information? Would it lower the <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/APC" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#APC</a> for you, to bring you in, or raise it, to price you out? For airlines or journals, would there be any reason to stick with the model if it didn't raise net revenues?<a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/Economics" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#Economics</a> <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/Prices" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#Prices</a> <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/ScholComm" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#ScholComm</a>

petersuberExcellent: "More than 100 institutions and funders worldwide have confirmed that research published in <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/eLife" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#eLife</a> continues to be considered in hiring, promotion, and funding decisions, following the journal’s bold move to forgo its Journal Impact Factor." <a href="https://elifesciences.org/for-the-press/bf74b86e/more-than-100-institutions-and-funders-confirm-recognition-of-elife-papers-signalling-support-for-open-science" rel="nofollow noopener" translate="no" target="_blank">https://elifesciences.org/for-the-press/bf74b86e/more-than-100-institutions-and-funders-confirm-recognition-of-elife-papers-signalling-support-for-open-science</a>PS: This is not just a step to support eLife, but a step to break the stranglehold of bad metrics in research assessment. For the same reason, it's a step toward more honest and less simplistic assessment.<a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/Academia" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#Academia</a> <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/Assessment" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#Assessment</a> <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/JIF" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#JIF</a> <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/Metrics" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#Metrics</a> <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/Universities" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#Universities</a> <a href="https://a.gup.pe/u/academicchatter" class="u-url mention" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">@academicchatter</a>

petersuberNew study: More than one-third of public health <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/journals" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#journals</a> (33.7%) do not ask authors for data-sharing statements. Those that do request data-sharing statements are more likely to be <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/OpenAccess" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#OpenAccess</a>, high in <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/JIF" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#JIF</a>, published in the UK, or endorsers of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (<a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/CONSORT" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#CONSORT</a>). <a href="https://www.jmir.org/2025/1/e64069" rel="nofollow noopener" translate="no" target="_blank">https://www.jmir.org/2025/1/e64069</a> Note that "the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (<a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/ICMJE" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#ICMJE</a>) require[s] that all papers submitted after July 1, 2018, must include a data-sharing statement." <a href="https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2630773" rel="nofollow noopener" translate="no" target="_blank">https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2630773</a><a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/Medicine" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#Medicine</a> <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/OpenData" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#OpenData</a> <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/ScholComm" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#ScholComm</a>

petersuberUpdate. Confirming the study above, a new study finds that when new <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/species" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#species</a> are added to the endangered species list, the research documenting the danger comes much more often from low-JIF journals than from high-JIF journals. The authors call for new impact metrics to take this into account. <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-00144-w" rel="nofollow noopener" translate="no" target="_blank">https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-00144-w</a> (<a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/paywalled" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#paywalled</a>)PS: There are two related conclusions here. Academic incentives for high-JIF publications lead scientists away from research that might help save endangered species. Helping save endangered species is an important kind of impact that fails to register on prevailing impact metrics. <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/Animals" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#Animals</a> <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/Assessment" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#Assessment</a> <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/Extinction" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#Extinction</a> <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/JIF" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#JIF</a> <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/Metrics" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#Metrics</a>

petersuberMore evidence catching <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/publishers" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#publishers</a> at gaming their journal impact factor (<a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/JIF" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#JIF</a>). <a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.03771" rel="nofollow noopener" translate="no" target="_blank">https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.03771</a> "Sneaked references are references registered in the metadata of publications without being listed in reference section or in the full text of the actual publications where they ought to be found. We document here 80,205 references sneaked in metadata of the International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology (<a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/IJISRT" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#IJISRT</a>). These sneaked references are registered with Crossref and all cite -- thus benefit -- this same journal."<a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/FakeCitations" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#FakeCitations</a> <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/Misconduct" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#Misconduct</a> <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/ScholComm" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#ScholComm</a>

petersuberHow <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/authors" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#authors</a> and <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/journals" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#journals</a> both benefit from publishing <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/AI" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#AI</a> slop. <a href="https://www.science.org/content/article/shoddy-commentaries-quick-and-dirty-route-higher-impact-numbers-are-rise" rel="nofollow noopener" translate="no" target="_blank">https://www.science.org/content/article/shoddy-commentaries-quick-and-dirty-route-higher-impact-numbers-are-rise</a>Authors get another publication for their resumes, perhaps a PubMed-indexed publication. If it's a <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/commentary" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#commentary</a>, not a research article, they needn't do any new research. Journals get an <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/APC" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#APC</a>, citations to game their impact factor (<a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/JIF" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#JIF</a>), or both.<a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/ScholComm" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#ScholComm</a>

petersuberNew study: "[Impact factor stats for] <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/OpenAccess" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#OpenAccess</a> journals adhere to <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/BenfordsLaw" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#BenfordsLaw</a> more closely than subscribed journals." <a href="https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/10753145" rel="nofollow noopener" translate="no" target="_blank">https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/10753145</a> (<a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/paywalled" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#paywalled</a>)Benford's law is weird & fascinating. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benford%27s_law" rel="nofollow noopener" translate="no" target="_blank">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benford%27s_law</a>I have no idea what to make of its appearance here.The authors' take: "The rate of increase in [non-OA] journals is much higher than that of OA journals…[&] violations of Benford's Law are more frequent in [non-OA] journals compared to open [OA] journals.<a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/JIF" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#JIF</a>

Torsten RoederÜber die Kulturgeschichte des GIFs von Tilman Baumgärtel: <a href="https://pixel.hypotheses.org/3210" rel="nofollow noopener" translate="no" target="_blank">https://pixel.hypotheses.org/3210</a> <a href="https://fedihum.org/tags/gif" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#gif</a> <a href="https://fedihum.org/tags/jif" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#jif</a> <a href="https://fedihum.org/tags/image" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#image</a> <a href="https://fedihum.org/tags/pixel" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#pixel</a> <a href="https://fedihum.org/tags/www" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#www</a>

petersuberNew study: The US Endangered Species Act (<a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/ESA" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#ESA</a>) requires use of the “best available science” for determining the status of a given species. But the best science on individual taxa & regions is usually published in journals with low journal impact factors (<a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/JIF" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#JIF</a>). We must "value & fund the taxa- & region-specific science that underpins actionable <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/conservation" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#conservation</a> laws" regardless of JIF. <a href="https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cobi.14391" rel="nofollow noopener" translate="no" target="_blank">https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cobi.14391</a>PS: Cockeyed emphasis on high-JIF publication is another factor endangering species. <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/Animals" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#Animals</a> <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/Assessment" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#Assessment</a> <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/Metrics" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#Metrics</a>

petersuberNew study: Research articles with greater "temporal diversity" (age range of cited sources) tend to have lower citation impact and higher potential for <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/disruption" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#disruption</a>. "The positive effect on disruption is mainly driven by older references." <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2024.101594" rel="nofollow noopener" translate="no" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2024.101594</a> (<a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/paywalled" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#paywalled</a>)PS: To me this is another reason to distinguish <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/impact" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#impact</a> and <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/quality" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#quality</a>. (Metrics like <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/JIF" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#JIF</a> are another reason.) For impact, a focus on recent work may be smart. But for quality, it's short-sighted.<a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/Citations" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#Citations</a> <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/ScholComm" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#ScholComm</a>

petersuberFrom <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/DuncanWright" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#DuncanWright</a>: "Researchers may justifiably complain about the amount of control exerted by large <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/publishers" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#publishers</a> and <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/JIF" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#JIF</a>, but until they collectively agree to (a) cease basing grant and hiring decisions on the quantity of a researcher's publications and the journal in which the work was published, and (b) select journals for their own work based on factors beyond JIF, nothing will change." <a href="https://febs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/1873-3468.15018" rel="nofollow noopener" translate="no" target="_blank">https://febs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/1873-3468.15018</a>

petersuberUpdate. From <a href="https://mastodon.online/@lizziegadd" class="u-url mention" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">@lizziegadd</a>: “Maybe” <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/AI" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#AI</a> can support the process of research <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/assessment" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#assessment</a>. But a “lot of the arguments and worries we’re having about AI, we had about <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/bibliometrics" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#bibliometrics</a>.” <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-02989-z" rel="nofollow noopener" translate="no" target="_blank">https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-02989-z</a> <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/JIF" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#JIF</a> <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/Metrics" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#Metrics</a>

petersuberNew study: In the field of <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/conservation" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#conservation</a> <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/biology" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#biology</a>, "authors from middle-income countries were willing to pay more [in <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/APCs" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#APCs</a>] for society-owned journals, unlike authors from high-income countries. Journals with a broad geographical scope that were <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/OpenAccess" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#OpenAccess</a> &…had relatively high impact factors [<a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/JIF" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#JIF</a>] were preferred by 2 of the 3 demographic groups. However, journal scope & open access were more important in dictating journal choice than impact factor." <a href="https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cobi.14369" rel="nofollow noopener" translate="no" target="_blank">https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cobi.14369</a><a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/ScholComm" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#ScholComm</a>

petersuberUpdate. Most journals of radiology (60.3%) fail to meet even one of the <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/SAGER" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#SAGER</a> (Sex and Gender Equity in Research) criteria. However, those that did had higher journal impact factors. <a href="https://www.ejradiology.com/article/S0720-048X(24)00344-9/fulltext" rel="nofollow noopener" translate="no" target="_blank">https://www.ejradiology.com/article/S0720-048X(24)00344-9/fulltext</a> <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/DEI" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#DEI</a> <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/Gender" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#Gender</a> <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/Impact" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#Impact</a> <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/JIF" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#JIF</a>

petersuberThe <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/EuropeanCommission" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#EuropeanCommission</a> has released details on how it will implement its 10 important commitments to reform research <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/assessment" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#assessment</a>. <a href="https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/document/download/e69aff11-4494-4e5f-866c-694539a3ea26_en?filename=ec_rtd_commitments-reform-research-assessment.pdf" rel="nofollow noopener" translate="no" target="_blank">https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/document/download/e69aff11-4494-4e5f-866c-694539a3ea26_en?filename=ec_rtd_commitments-reform-research-assessment.pdf</a>The top 3 for me:"2: Base research assessment primarily on qualitative evaluation…supported by responsible use of quantitative indicators… 3: Abandon inappropriate uses…of journal and pub-based metrics, in particular inappropriate uses of Journal Impact Factor (<a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/JIF" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#JIF</a>) and h-index…4: Avoid the use of <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/rankings" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#rankings</a> of research organisations…"

petersuber🧵 This doesn't follow. Even if all journals with JIFs now meet certain quality criteria, it wouldn't follow that the <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/JIF" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#JIF</a> was itself a marker of quality. It still measures citations, not quality. Two journals of equal quality could have very unequal JIFs, and two journals with equal JIFs could have very unequal quality. BTW, here are the quality criteria Clarivate applies to journals. <a href="https://clarivate.com/products/scientific-and-academic-research/research-discovery-and-workflow-solutions/webofscience-platform/web-of-science-core-collection/editorial-selection-process/" rel="nofollow noopener" translate="no" target="_blank">https://clarivate.com/products/scientific-and-academic-research/research-discovery-and-workflow-solutions/webofscience-platform/web-of-science-core-collection/editorial-selection-process/</a>

petersuber<a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/Clarivate" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#Clarivate</a> says that in the 70s, "The terms ‘high quality’ & ‘high impact’ were often used interchangeably."It admits that times have changed. "As chasing publications & citations have…become goals in themselves, we can no longer assume that the 'best' journals are the most highly cited."It now subjects all journals to "rigorous quality criteria". As a result, it says, the journal impact factor (<a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/JIF" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#JIF</a>) is now "a marker of quality, not just of scholarly impact." <a href="https://www.researchinformation.info/analysis-opinion/quality-and-trust-over-impact" rel="nofollow noopener" translate="no" target="_blank">https://www.researchinformation.info/analysis-opinion/quality-and-trust-over-impact</a>🧵

Wendy PattersonAn introductory 3-minute video posted on <a href="https://openbiblio.social/@TIB_AVPortal" class="u-url mention" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">@TIB_AVPortal</a> describing why the journal impact factor <a href="https://mas.to/tags/JIF" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#JIF</a> is a poor metric for assessing the impact of research: In German - <a href="https://doi.org/10.5446/67070" rel="nofollow noopener" translate="no" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5446/67070</a> In English - <a href="https://doi.org/10.5446/67071" rel="nofollow noopener" translate="no" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5446/67071</a> Would be great to see these posted on your library websites!

petersuberUpdate. "Most journals [make] minimal efforts to overcome language barriers. The impact factor of journals [<a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/JIF" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#JIF</a>] was negatively associated w/ adopting a number of inclusive policies…Ownership by a scientific society tended to have a positive association. Contrary to our expectations, the proportion of both <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/OpenAccess" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#OpenAccess</a> articles & editors based in non-English speaking countries did not have a major positive association w/ the adoption of linguistically inclusive policies." <a href="https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2023.2840" rel="nofollow noopener" translate="no" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2023.2840</a>

petersuberUpdate. " 'The capacity to purchase citations in bulk is a new and worrying development,' says Jennifer Byrne, a cancer researcher at the University of Sydney who has studied problematic publications in the biomedical literature…A researcher’s h-index and the number of citations they’ve garnered are often used for hiring and promotion decisions." <a href="https://www.science.org/content/article/vendor-offering-citations-purchase-latest-bad-actor-scholarly-publishing" rel="nofollow noopener" translate="no" target="_blank">https://www.science.org/content/article/vendor-offering-citations-purchase-latest-bad-actor-scholarly-publishing</a> <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/Fraud" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#Fraud</a> <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/JIF" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#JIF</a> <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/Metrics" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#Metrics</a> <a href="https://fediscience.org/tags/Misconduct" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#Misconduct</a>

Recent searches

Search options

Administered by:

Server stats:

#jif