diff --git a/common/modules/ese-research.org b/common/modules/ese-research.org
index 88389d2..cb7009f 100644
--- a/common/modules/ese-research.org
+++ b/common/modules/ese-research.org
@@ -1,100 +1,104 @@
 #+COLUMNS: %40ITEM %10BEAMER_env(Env) %9BEAMER_envargs(Env Args) %10BEAMER_act(Act) %4BEAMER_col(Col) %10BEAMER_extra(Extra) %8BEAMER_opt(Opt)
 #+INCLUDE: "prelude.org" :minlevel 1
 
 * Software provenance and evolution
   :PROPERTIES:
   :CUSTOM_ID: provenance
   :END:
 ** Software provenance and evolution
 #+BEAMER: \begin{center} \includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{commit-time-distro} \end{center} \vspace{-2mm}
 *** Key findings
     - The amount of original commits in public code doubles every ~30 months
       and has been doing so for 20+ years; original source code files double
       every ~22 months
     - It is possible to trace the provenance of source code artifacts at this
       scale in a compact relational model via the notion of isochrone graphs.
 
   #+BEAMER: \vspace{-2mm}
 *** 
      #+BEGIN_EXPORT latex
      \vspace{-2mm}
      \footnotesize
      \begin{thebibliography}{Foo Bar, 1969}
      \bibitem{Rousseau2020} Rousseau, Di Cosmo, Zacchiroli\newblock
      Software Provenance Tracking at the Scale of Public Source Code\newblock
      In Empirical Software Engineering, 2020
      \end{thebibliography}
      #+END_EXPORT
 * Software forks
   :PROPERTIES:
   :CUSTOM_ID: forks
   :END:
 ** Software forks
 *** Idea
 - Forks can be detected via either platform metadata (e.g., GitHub keeping
   track of who clicked "fork" on what repo; the most common approach), or via
   shared version control system history.
 - Thanks to deduplication and platform agnosticity, Software Heritage provide a
   privileged observation point on the global fork ecosystem in public code.
 *** Research questions
 - What is the right definition of "being a fork"? (methodology)
 - How many forks could we miss by looking only at platform metadata?
 - How many "cross-platform" forks (e.g., GitHub → GitLab) exist in the wild?
 ** Software forks (cont.)
 *** Findings
 - Forks classification: based on platform metadata (“type 1” forks), sharing at
   least one commit (“type 2”), sharing a common root directory at some point in
   VCS history (“type 3”).
 - Up to 16% forks could be overlooked by considering only GitHub type 1 forks
   (a potentially significant threat to validity!).
 - Relevant independent development activity can happen on GitLab.com for
   projects initially just mirrored from GitHub.
 *** 
      #+BEGIN_EXPORT latex
      \vspace{-3mm} \footnotesize
      \begin{thebibliography}{Foo Bar, 1969}
      \bibitem{Pietri2020} Pietri, Rousseau, Zacchiroli.\newblock
      Forking Without Clicking: on How to Identify Software Repository Forks.\newblock
      MSR 2020
      \bibitem{Bhattacharjee2020} Bhattacharjee et al.\newblock
      An exploratory study to find motives behind cross-platform forks from Software Heritage dataset.\newblock
      MSR 2020
      \end{thebibliography}
      #+END_EXPORT
 * Diversity, equity, and inclusion
   :PROPERTIES:
   :CUSTOM_ID: diversity
   :END:
 ** Diversity, equity, and inclusion
 *** Idea
     Archived commit metadata contains public information that can be mined to
     study long-term trends of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) traits of
     the global population of public code contributors.
 
 *** Key findings on the gender gap
     - Male authors contributed 92% of public code commits up to 2019.
     - The ratio of female authors (and their contributions) has grown stably
       for 15 years reaching for the first time 10% of yearly contributions
       in 2019.
     - The COVID-19 pandemic has reversed the trend.
 
 ** Diversity, equity, and inclusion (cont.)
 
 *** Key findings on the geographic gap
     - The early decades of public code were dominated by contributions from
       North America, followed by a period of alternating dominance between
       North America and Europe.
     - Since then geographic diversity has increased constantly, with raising
       importance of contributions from Central and South America.
     - The trend of increased female contributions is almost worlwide, with the
       notable exception of specific regions of Asia were it is either slower or
       flat.
 
 *** References
     #+BEAMER: \footnotesize
-    - Zacchiroli. /Gender differences in public code contributions: a 50-year
-      perspective/. IEEE Software, 2021
-    - Rossi and Zacchiroli. /Worldwide gender differences in public code
-      contributions/. ICSE SEIS, 2022
-    - Rossi and Zacchiroli. /Geographic diversity in public code
-      contributions/. MSR 2022
+    - Zacchiroli.
+      /Gender differences in public code contributions: a 50-year perspective/.
+      IEEE Software, 2021
+    - Rossi and Zacchiroli.
+      /Worldwide gender differences in public code contributions (and how they have been affected by the COVID-19
+      pandemic)/.
+      ICSE SEIS, 2022
+    - Rossi and Zacchiroli.
+      /Geographic diversity in public code contributions/.
+      MSR 2022