 I prefer to speak with this kind of instrument when I was offered a guitar at the same time, so I just wanted to let you know that you won't have to suffer through that. It's again a real pleasure to be able to say a few closing words about this whole process, and I'm going to allow myself to perhaps dream a little more about a future for open air. I have the feeling I was present almost after the conception of the baby, which is an unusual situation to be in without being the father, and I have seen it evolve ever since, and that baby has gone through a very, very major mutation. It was a pilot, it was in a sense hampered by being a pilot because it had to deal with only a fraction of the papers of one organization and so on, and it had a very weak mandate to work with, so no stick, a very elusive carrot, and really a lot of difficulties, and yet despite all of this, the project has grown into something that's not working and is turning into a real service. Not only is it turning into a real service, but I see it as becoming an agent for the reforming of scientific publishing in many, many ways. I see it as a way to do so for the following reasons. This system, the French would call that a dispositif, I don't know if you know the word, but this system has the potential already of establishing quality criteria. It validates repositories. So if repositories are validated, there's a good name behind it, and they can say things about what they are holding. So what are in those repositories should count, and it should count probably in the same way that many articles and journals do count nowadays. They may have things to say in fact about the quality of the scientific work. One thing that strikes me more and more as being weird is that, and I think this gentleman here in front said something very important about trying to link quality to a rejection rate. I agree entirely with your question. We manage strangely the quality of scientific work through the quality of journals. Well, scientific work and journals are two different things. Walpole, the head of the Wellcome Trust, once said we should completely change our evaluation system when people come to ask for grants. We should have the people present their papers in a, you might say, publishing an anonymized form. In other words, they might send their manuscript rather than the published formatted article with the name of the journal on it. What would that do? It would force the jurors to really read the articles rather than say, oh, it's good, it was published in Nature. So the repositories I think have a role to play in the establishment of quality criteria, which will not be based on journals, but will be based on the quality of the articles themselves. The mechanisms to do so have yet to be invented, but I think they can be organized. I think they can be decided in the future. And I think that if we go back to journals and publications, I think Open Air, as I was trying to say a bit earlier, has things to say about the production of journals and the production of good publications. It seems to me that Open Air could offer a common infrastructural platform for journals that would want to avail themselves of it, and that might decrease a lot of the costs for all of these journals. There are systems to manage transactions of manuscripts, which are pretty open and are used all over the world like the open journal system. And Open Air could look into similar systems, or that system in particular, and offer it to societies so that they could do at a lower cost the difficult task of selecting journals, selecting articles, excuse me. Now there is another point that Open Air can do, which is, again, perhaps help make the whole publishing system a little bit healthier. When you submit an article to a journal, that journal is going to select your article on the basis of not one criterion, but several criteria. Quality will be there, their vision of quality will be there. But there is also the competition between journals, which means that you select this article rather than that article, because it will help you in your competition against journals. That, again, has nothing to do with the quality of scientific work. It has to do with the logic of competition among journals, and we don't really need that for good scientific work. Now, if you start disconnecting quality from all these other concerns, and you really focus on quality independently of the problems raised, independently of the fields and domains being proposed in order just to create a platform for good scientific work, then you're coming very close to the plus one solution. Now I would suggest that Open Air might have a role in establishing a European equivalent to plus one, to restore the importance of quality without strategic aims about positioning a particular journal in a particular competitive field. That, again, I think is an important thing Open Air could do. And Open Air could do a third thing with the respect to publishing the whole publishing field. It is to start really establishing the legitimacy of journals that publish negative results. We've tried it, it didn't work, we did good work, we did it seriously, we did all of that, don't do it again, it doesn't work, we can prove it. Now this is unrewarded work which deserves to be rewarded, and Open Air could open up their very original trail which would make, again, science a bit healthier. So what I see in effect, I think it was said this morning very, very well, the problem of scientific quality, the problem of science nowadays is really linked to a problem in evaluation of science, evaluation of the quality of science. I see Open Air not only supporting open access and developing a new platform for the publishing and the storing of scientific results, but I also see it becoming a major actor in rethinking, redeveloping new tools in order to create a juster, a stronger and a, I think, fairer way of evaluating science. And in the end we might end up with a theme that's quite dear to me which I've been pushing for a while, which is let's not confuse excellence and quality. Excellence is easy to identify but it's very special, it's competition. The first three at the Olympics are excellent. They have competed and have been selected that way. But quality is really more like responding to thresholds of behavior. If I do it to that level, I'm good enough and that's good enough and it's useful. Now in science we need a lot of quality work. In fact, most of scientific work is mundane quality work. There are not that many Einstein's in the world. And Open Air, tell me, and Garcia, right? These are rare guys. These are the competitive excellent guys. But you don't judge the whole system of science through just those few individuals and you don't try to manage the whole of science by making everybody compete as if they were all Einstein's. Most people know they are not and they don't compete and then problems emerge. And one of the problems that emerges in this regard is the rise in cheating, fraud and all that. It's a very interesting article recently that demonstrated that the higher the impact factor of a journal the more articles were being withdrawn from that journal. Now why is that? Because people are cheating to get into these journals. Why do they cheat to get into these journals? It's because the competition game has been organized around these kinds of journals and this kind of way of judging quality in science. I'm saying that Open Air has a role in really establishing a new voice for the quality of science and the value of scientific work and Open Access of course has always been one of the important tools to achieve that but what Open Air can do is that we can implement Open Access in a very concrete in a very strong way over a large territory with a lot of scientific production and that will become very important for the whole planet. So I really think Open Air has a great and beautiful future and instead of it it has great tasks to fulfill. Thank you.