 seems like it should, right? It seems like if you do a better job at doing very careful work that it should increase the impact of your paper. And I would think that no matter what else is going on, careful work should be something that we all strive for. Because we can all do better in terms of being very careful in doing our science and reporting on our science. And that should be its own reward. But that being said, I think that this is something that we need to measure. We need to look at journals where you know the same kind of paper is published with and without an RRID or a set of RRIDs and really try to figure out you know are people able to now find these reagents more easily? And I think that again this is something that will start to come out over the next few years. This initiative is still relatively young. We now have a lot of uptake in some of the big journals, but we're going to have to really understand, okay so there's a cell paper without an RRID and there's a cell paper with an RRID. Maybe they're only a few months apart. Hopefully in a few years would we know what the impact of those papers with and without R. We'll be able to take a look and say okay here is the increase in impact factor based on the RRID. That would be great. I don't quite think that we have enough data at this time. We don't it's really a little bit too new. But one way or the other there's no reason to be sloppy. There's reason to be a little bit better in reporting these materials. Because that can only help you. It can help your colleagues. It can help the people reading your article. And if we can help them read more easily I would think that they would cite you more frequently than they would if they had to really go and track down and call you up and try to figure out where that antibody is that you used.