(5.2.6) Trickey : Again we are faced with generic challenges in physical science. Funding pressures are one. Competition among publishers to have the most exclusive journals is another. Emphasis is on the allegedly spectacular. These influences combine to make it hard to publish careful, incremental advances, let alone negative results. Within the DFT community, maybe we should urge editors to accept the publication (hence, also, respectful refereeing) of careful presentation of negative results about well-motivated, well-grounded attempts at advancement? (5.2.7) Gori-Giorgi : We should also not forget that the pressure to publish goes hand in hand not only with the competition to obtain funding but also with how we evaluate (young) scientists. There is now (finally) an attempt to shift from criteria based on quantity (like the number of publications, the hindex, etc.) to move towards quality. How to define the latter is of course a big challenge -although experts usually recognize quality in their field, any definition has exceptions. There is also more focus on collaboration and team science, which are positive developments. But without appropriate funding and reasonable career perspectives for young people, the situation regarding overpublishing and overselling results (writing artificial success stories) will probably remain dire.