 more straightforward and more user-friendly. That's a never-ending story. I am trying to continue to explore some of the places where we can interject good information into the publishing process. So the things I'm doing inside of Cycrunch now include automating some of the ways that the editors interact with authors about RIDs. I'm trying to create text mining tools that would do some of this work automatically. We're having a little bit of success and a little bit of not-success. Once those tools are ready, we will go to journals and say, hey, would you like to save time? We're trying to find information about bad antibodies. We're trying to find information about bad cell lines and incomplete knockout animals and all of these other things. We're trying to enrich the data set that we have about these different kinds of things. We're trying to go out and find all the papers that have used a particular mouse, a particular antibody, a particular cell line, and we're trying to bring them together into an umbrella. Have we succeeded? No. But we're moving forward. We're definitely moving forward. So with cell lines, we do a pretty good job and it's because we're not doing it. It's the ICLAC consortium that actually does it. But we want to do the same thing for antibodies. We want to do some of the same things for some of the organisms and some of the organism repositories do a really good job at this and some don't. So we want to fill the gap where those organizations are not doing that particular work. So again, we think with the identifiers that get published out in papers, this part becomes easier. But there's a lot of work to be done in this space and what we wanna do is we really wanna make this part of science better. We want to mainly make sure that the authors that are really trying to do a good job here, they get recognized. They have better statistics on their papers and I would love to be able to institute a score that instead of the impact factor, you would have a how good is my research factor, right? How solid are these conclusions factor? It would be a little bit different. It's what I would like to see is how good is my science factor. Impact factor for me is something that means I'm popular. It's nice to be popular but as scientists, we shouldn't strive for popularity, right? We should strive for better science. And so I would love to be able to create an impact factor but for good science instead of popularity.