 So, let us then go now to the tutorial. This is the first passage, I want to read it for you. You can see any vapor by the strength of the light diffused by the individual particle. And the more particles you have, the stronger the diffusion. From the strength of the diffusion, you can actually count the number of molecules. I use the word counting not like 1, 2, 3, 4, it is a different type of counting. When I was in the currency office, they used to count the rupees. You know what they did? They did not count the rupees, they counted the bags, they weighed the bags. Each bag was supposed to contain 2000 rupees that had to be taken on trust. And then multiply the number of bags and you get a crore, 10 million of rupees. Like that, you count the molecules of the atmosphere, it is only a sort of estimate. This is passage 1. This is passage 2. The method of approach to the problem of molecular scattering, which is somewhat different from Rayleigh's and which enables the case of liquids to be included, is the theory of fluctuations developed by Einstein and Smolchowski and used by the later especially to elucidate the optical phenomenon observed in the vicinity of the critical state. In this theory, the medium is regarded as undergoing small local variations of density owing to the irregular movements of the molecules and the result of these fluctuations of density is that a certain proportion of the instant light is scattered. Okay? Question. What do you think about the intended audience for passage 1 and passage 2? Yes? Yes. The question is most probably for liquid energy, for engine energy, and for passage 2 I mean... More for the tunnel or article kind of stuff. Article. Okay? Everybody agrees? Yes. Okay. And both are from Sarsiviraman. The first one is a beautiful article. You should go look it up. Why the sky is blue? He's talking to school children in Ahmedabad or some place for the academy meeting. And the second one is from his article about why the sea is blue. So that is published in some Proceedings of Royal Society. Audience, you will change the tone. You will change the words. You will change the way you say things. Okay? You will change the way you use the examples. Okay? In the scientific article, he's not going to write about his experience in the currency counting office. Okay? But with the students, he will say it. And Raman, I found, is one of the best examples of the way he changes when he projects information. There are technical papers about light scattering in diamond. There are articles in the Hindu in those days about diamond. Very different in tone, extremely different in the way they communicate information. You might not realize this, but the two information are basically the same. In fact, Einstein's PhD thesis was on counting the number of molecules using light scattering. And that is what he is describing to the children in the other, this thing. And that is the same thing he is describing here. Okay? So to take such complex information and put it across is a huge effort. And I always found that Raman to be very good at doing this. Okay? Unfortunately, that online resource doesn't exist. RRI used to have all his writing, technical and non-technical. So it used to be such a pressure to read some of them. Previously, it was, I wrote to their librarian, but she hasn't responded yet. Okay? Saying that where is this? Because I wanted to share it with you so that you can go look up. You can use it as examples. But some of it is available. For example, he has nice articles, technical articles about Veena and Mrdangam, Tabla and things like that, which are available for download. You can download and read, which also I like because for this kind of audience. No, Raman effect is from light passage through liquids. But Mrdangam and all, he has done some experiments. So you will put some powder, you will make them vibrate and show what kind of patterns they develop and things like that. Okay? Okay. So it's very clear what the intended audience is and you can also explain why. Okay? So you should always do this as a game. You know? Can I look at some passage and guess how many times do I get it right? Sometimes you don't get it right because the author hasn't done a good job of it. That is also possible. So let's look at this. Okay? Before I do this, I actually want to show you something. This is a paper, very famous paper written by Watson and Crick when they figured out the double helix structure of DNA. There are two things that I want to point out to you about this article. The first thing, this is all very short. In those days, nature was all one page. You know, Romans is one page and this is one page. The first is that if you look at the structure of the paper, for example, if you just read the first lines of each paragraph, we wish to suggest a structure for the salt of deoxyribose nucleic acid. A structure for nucleic acid has already been proposed by Pauling and Corey, right? And then you go down. Another three-strain structure has also been suggested by Fraser. We wish to put forward a radically different structure for the salt of deoxyribose nucleic acid, right? So you can just read the first lines of the paragraphs and they have structured it beautifully so that you can follow what they want to do, what is the background, what is it that they are doing, how they are doing it. This is the nicer part of the Watson-Crick article, but they are also nasty. So one here, for example, this is a single paragraph. This is a very famous sentence in time because, see, they have solved the structure. Now they are claiming that the genetic information is paused on because of this structure. They don't have the details. But if suppose they didn't write this line, somebody else, all they have to say is they have proposed a structure that can do genetic information. So they want to claim priority for thinking of this as the mechanism for genetic information transfer. So this is where they are cunning. They write, it has not escaped our notice that the specific pairing we have postulated immediately suggests a possible copying mechanism for the genetic material, supposedly one of the best understatements in literature. The next line also is something that all of you might do. This is where I said, if you have something else, which is not fitting in the narrative, what do you do? You say that it will be published elsewhere, which is what they are doing. Full details of the structure including the conditions assumed in building it together with a set of coordinates for the atoms will be published elsewhere. Now the last paragraph is the nasty thing that they did. Do you know what they did? Anybody here knows what they did? So there was a researcher called Rosalind Franklin. She was doing experiments and she also pretty much figured out. But Rosalind Franklin is very conscientious. She would not publish unless she does the experiment several times, confirms that it is so. But they were in a hurry to get credit and by one line acknowledgement, they sort of made sure that Rosalind didn't get Nobel Prize. We have also been stimulated by a knowledge of the general nature of the unpublished experimental results and ideas of Mr. M. H. F. Wilkins and Dr. R. E. Franklin. R. E. Franklin is Rosalind Franklin. If I remember correct, I think Wilkins was part of the gang that got Nobel Prize, but Rosalind didn't. But if you go to this nature version, the following article is on experiments and the next article is actually by Rosalind Franklin. This is also a very maybe successful way of communicating science, but I feel that this is not a great way of doing science. The world is a big place. We don't have to crowd out others. I would have respected Crick and Watson, even if Rosalind Franklin also got Nobel Prize with them. So there are lots of articles. You can look at resonance. There are series of articles about Rosalind Franklin. So in the scientific community, it is known that they did it. And they are accused of lots of things. Again, there is a book called Double Helix, extremely well written. Very controversial for some of these things. The way they describe the interactions with Rosalind and the way they try to sort of indicate that she really was not doing great or something like that. But as technical writing, unbeatable writing, here are some people who are not good role models for you in professional ethical sense, but certainly good role models from the point of view of how to write. I mean, look at that. Each paragraph, each sentence. You can just read the topical sentences and you will carry the paper with you. So this is the other exercise I had in mind, so I have done it. So this is the first sentences and these are the tricky sentences. This is the last trick. So this is a kind of paragraph writing style which is sometimes recommended. This is not the only style. There are also places where the last sentence of each paragraph can give you. Sometimes people mix. First sentence, topical sentence will be there for some paragraphs and some others will be the last sentence. So you can do whatever works for you. You need to write a few times and see what sounds better and what conveys your flow of thoughts and what does it in a fashion in which you want it to be conveyed. So we are going to complete this pretty soon. You should have a good dictionary. In fact, you should have several good dictionaries with you and one or two atlas. That is very old style thing. Nowadays with Google nobody wants to look at atlas anymore and sometimes not even dictionary. You know people just look up and there. But I still recommend that you buy a good dictionary. There are lots of things that are there in the dictionary which is still not part of online culture. Now if you are not looking up dictionary at least once in 2 or 3 days, that means that you are not reading to your potential. You are never too old for not looking up the dictionary. If you are not looking up the dictionary then your reading material is not on par. Your linguistic capability is what you can do. You are not reading at that level. That is what it means. So a good dictionary and usage of it is very very essential. When we were in school they even taught us whatever phonemes how to read and things like that. These days that is not very difficult because online there are places where you can click and hear and you can get the pronunciation. But it is still a good idea to have a good dictionary. Here again people are very particular. Some people like Webster. Some people like Cambridge. Some people like Oxford. What I'm reading is that you know the common thing is to everyone, right? So that's what I'm telling. I mean people have different opinions. I come from Oxford gang so I always have 2-3 Oxford dictionaries with me. But that is not something that is universally recommended by everybody. Some people like Cambridge. Some people like Webster. So Oxford has an academic writing dictionary. Oxford has an advanced learners dictionary. Cambridge also has advanced learners dictionary. And then the full complete English dictionary is there. And I think Oxford the complete dictionary is running into some... Thesaurus is just this thing. The dictionary itself is about 13-14 volumes and costs about 10,000-12,000. That is only for libraries. But personal copy, there is one which is available for 800-900 bucks. Some... Lacks of words. So academic writing there is one. But not for technical communication. But there are dictionaries of metallurgy, for example, dictionaries of chemistry, dictionaries of physics. So there are subject dictionaries. And then there is academic writing dictionary. Common people are Oxford. Oxford, Cambridge. Oxford has an academic dictionary. Academic writing dictionary. Dictionary of academic writing. So you have to subscribe to some good technical journal. If you are teaching technical communication, please subscribe to some technical journal. Resonance is something that I like. Even from my college days I have been reading. It's a very good journal. It's published by Indian Academy of Sciences. The biggest advantage is you don't have to pay. It's available online for free from the Springer side. Academy. Resonance. Journal of Science Education, it's called. It's from the Indian Academy of Sciences. The volumes are available for free. And wired and economists. Sometimes economists has, you know, odd about admitting it. But they have their obituary session. Which is probably the best description in four lines about any field. Somebody who has passed away, who is an architect or somebody who is an economist or somebody who is a chemist, a science biologist. Four or five lines. They will explain what is the person's contribution. And I have never seen anybody else doing it so beautifully. Whether it is in your area or not. So learn later. Which is very important. And there are plotting software called GNU plot, Octave and things like that. And there are statistical analysis software called R. Which is primarily used by biologists. And you should all have a lab notebook. And you should insist that your students have a lab notebook. In which they write everything. What they did, how they did, when they did, why they did. What they expected, what they got. Why they think they got, what they got. And please use a spell checker. Previous days somebody has to edit and look at your listening. Nowadays it is not. But when you are using a spell checker, please be consistent. Sometimes there is an UKF spelling. Sometimes there is an American spelling. And your spell checker indiscriminately gives. So, but if you are used to writing the British spelling, some of the words will be in British spelling. So you should consistently use and your spell checker format. You should tell which English you are using. And you should be used consistently. And this is something that I recommend. There are lots of online courses about technical writing. Stanford has one by a professor called Sainani. Which I have done. At least part of it I have done, not completely. No MOOC course of mine I completed ever. But there are lots and lots of resources. But because there are lots of resources, again it is very difficult to know which ones are standard. Many of them give wrong advice like this passive voice and don't use I, me and things like that. So some of them you have to be careful. So you should know the veracity of the information. And you should use which ones are standard. But there is also manuals of style. There is Chicago manual style. So there are also manuals of style. But once you get into this business, you will know. There is this book called Strunk and White, Elements of Style, which is universally recommended. But I know of several respected linguists who think that that book is bogus. But they instead recommend the Stephen Pinker's Sense of Style. It's a very good book. Not very costly, few hundred rupees. But it is worth having. And once you are in the business, once you start doing this, pretty soon you will also know what other things. So there is another book, which describes the same incident in 100 different ways. Sense of Style by Stephen Pinker. What I will do is, the books that I have along these lines, I'll make a list. I'll share it with Sundar so that all of you can get it. And it'll also go online. So Strunk and White is what generally people recommend. But there are linguists who take strong objections to Strunk and White. Similarly, I mean, when we were children, we were taught Renan Martin and Fowler and Fowler, modern English usage, whatever. But nowadays, I don't know how popular Fowler is, but I do see some criticism of some of the rules of Fowler. But I think that is simply because Fowler was written long back. Our things have changed. The way we look at English language has changed. So there are differences. But again, I'm not trained in English, so I don't know much. I know only what I used and what I use now. See, what we have been talking about is good technical writing. Where does the good technical writing comes from? It comes from a scientific attitude you should have. What is the scientific attitude? You believe that there is a simpler principle from which you can explain what is happening. Now, if you start from a simpler principle, and if the explanation is available for the existing phenomena, then you are done and you will accept that explanation. If that is not there, you still think that in terms of maybe the same or other simpler explanations, you can explain the observed phenomena. We are not talking about things which are not observable. Science and engineering is empirical. There is no place in it for something which is not empirical. For example, if you tell me that this is a way of doing this, but I am not able to go test it myself, for whatever reason. You might say that that particular material is no longer available. Then it becomes history and anthropology and it's not science. Everything that I say, I should be, and similarly, you can't say with your knowledge, you can't understand this. That's not science. You can say you need to know these, these, these to understand it. If I do that, I should be able to understand. That is the first thing. The second thing is curiosity. You want to know why the sea is blue. Who cares? You can write poetry about the blue of the sky and blue of the sea and go away. But as a scientist, I'm not satisfied with only that. I also want to know why. And not just that, the why should be an explanation in terms of simpler principles. Why can't be something like that is how it was made by God? That explanation is okay in certain contexts. In some contexts, I do believe God made it this way and I'm happy about it. But when I'm luring science, that is not how I would look at it. So curiosity, commitment to follow the truth wherever it takes. Sometimes some of the answers that comes on science is not comfortable for whatever reason. I believe that this is the reason why this experiment is giving this result. And repeated experiment show me that that is not the reason. I should be willing to accept that, yes, I was wrong. Yes, this is the new reason. Sometimes people say why mathematics is too difficult because it is very difficult not to make mistakes. If that is all there to it, it's not a problem. Maybe everywhere people are making mistakes. But in mathematics, it's very difficult not to accept the mistake once it is realized as a mistake. So science is also like that. The difficulty in science is mostly because of the way we approach things. And a good scientific attitude means that whatever result I get with these, I will accept them. However difficult it is for me to accept. And a commitment to communication. Science does not happen. It becomes magic. If I know how to do something, I even know the principle, but I don't tell you. Then that is not science, that is magic. I can always come and show and then everybody will be surprised. But science happens the moment I also start explaining why or how or how you can understand or how you can use the same principle to go beyond and do something else. And the enthusiasm for what you're doing. Science involves lots of drudgery be it experiments, be it coding, be it writing, be it communicating or understanding. You can't do it unless you are really enthusiastic about doing it. And you should also have lots of respect for those who work before you that is shown in terms of giving proper attribution to them. However small they are. No, it's not like it's okay to plagiarize from some smaller person because I know what does that person. It doesn't matter. It might be the student who joined your PhD program yesterday. It might be a well-established scientist whoever it is you are not taking somebody else's work. And if we take, we always give due attribution to them. And we believe that scientific community will do the same to us. That is very important. If you don't have that kind of respect for your fellow human beings who are involved in this process I don't think good communication will happen. And they urge to push the boundaries. Not happy with what it is now. I want to go slightly beyond. And once you start thinking like that then it means that you will understand a lot. You will understand ways of pushing the boundary. And then science automatically happens. And then if you have the flare the communication also happens. So I'm going to stop at this point. And if you have any questions I will take it. But in the meanwhile I wanted to leave you with a thought. We can discuss this is just for me to show you. Is there anybody here who doesn't know what Pythagoras theorem is? So Pythagoras theorem basically tells that if you have a right angle triangle and if this is A, this is B and this is C C squared equal to A squared plus B squared. Yes or no? I mean you can correct me. My Pythagoras theorem is correct. Okay, correct, very good. So now suppose you want to explain you know my mother hasn't done say or my grandmother hasn't done schooling. I have to explain to her what Pythagoras theorem is. Or you want to explain to your daughter who is in elementary school? Or you have a cousin who is in high school? There are many problems, I don't know. There is also this approximation. Sine theta is nearly equal to theta for small theta. So how do you explain that to your grandmother? Sure. Sir, by Brown's rectangle of length. Right, there are many nice ways, yeah, yeah. There are YouTube videos where they will take the things, yeah, yeah. Theometry book in our school then. Very good, very good. Okay, so you can think, I mean this is an exercise that you can think about but this need not be Pythagoras theorem. It could be any concept that you want to communicate but all that I'm trying to say is that you should think of three different types of audience. One is, you know, more or less all the technical stuff is known to them communicate a concept. Another one who doesn't know the technical concept but you can, you know, tell them what the technical concept is and they explain. That is another possibility. The third one is they don't have any technical information. So even the basic technical information has to be translated into plain English and you have to build from that. So it's a good exercise and we will do more of this exercise both online and during the sessions in December. So I also hope that you have noticed what the tutorial sessions are going to be like when you will be at the other end and you may have to engage with your audience and these are the things that I would like you to convey so that they can also do these exercises. We didn't have much time so the exercises I actually rushed through then many of you wanted to say things but I had to cut short. Hopefully during that time there will be more chances for us to interact. So if you have any questions, comments, yes sir. General questions sir. Yeah. First of all, thank you very much for your original ideas on technical writing. And my question is there was a victim called Publish or perish in those days. Later on, faculty members of institutions like you, they have to get funding. Later on patent. What is now, what is the current trend, sir? I want to know about from you as you are in the previous institutions. No, we would like to publish as much as possible. We also would like to get as many patents as possible but somewhere along the line, there is also the question of quality and it is not a question that is just related to science. Again I think of, what is the Markandeyer story? Is there anybody who doesn't know Markandeyer story? Yeah, you can always, the boon is that you will get 100 children who are useless or you will get one child who is great. You're supposed to choose the good child. Sometimes they tend to choose numbers over quality. The moment that happens, I think we are failing in several levels. We are failing the public who are funding us. We are failing the scientific community which is dependent on us. The next generation students are getting trained here. We are failing science overall for this country because if you just get numbers but if they are of no use, what is it that we are going to do with that science? So my personal viewpoint, again this is the personal viewpoint is that research is a very personal activity. Teaching is a common activity. I get paid for teaching. I get my salary because I have been given these courses to teach. In those courses they have put the curriculum. They know what is expected and I run exams. I check if the expectations are met by the students, the ones who meet to pass, the ones who don't fail and repeat. But research is a personal thing and because it is a personal thing, there are no rules. There are only guidelines. So what do I think about publishing lots of papers? I think you should publish lots of papers. Now how many is considered as lot? As many as you can publish without compromising on quality. Now that will be dependent on person, dependent on students, dependent on facilities, dependent on your area. And so we should only check for each person according to these constraints if the person is doing the best or not. But they are also very subjective. There is no objective measure. So because of which I think that's what I was telling impact factor for example. People talk about but some of the great papers that I know don't have that kind of impact factor. That doesn't make it any less great. So if we have that attitude as a scientific community, if we decide that we will look for quality and enhancement of quantity will done along with quality, that is a common community decision to make. That's not one person's decision. If we make that, I think we'll be in better off position. So I would like scientific administrators and managers in this community for example. What are these international rankings? How are they computed? How many of them are relevant for our context? What are the modifications we need to do for our ranking? Can we come up with our own ranking? So the people who have come up with the other ranking, they know what quality they expect and what quantity they expect that quality. We can take it and supplant it here. So yes and we should also not be, because writing is very difficult and writing a good paper and trying to get it through a good journal is difficult. We should not hesitate or be lazy to not do it. To that extent, I agree that we should try to publish, but I don't think there should be any compromise on the quality and the quality is this. Are we pushing the boundaries? Are we asking questions which are of relevance? Are we answering them to the best of our abilities? And are we translating them? It's also Indian Institute of Technology, it's not science. Finally, is it getting translated into something that is measurably improving the quality of life of people? Excuse me, sir. Yeah. So this, my question is regarding the reference. I read in some paper in abstract, they are also mentioning the reference. So is it correct? Generally it is not correct. And second one is what in by H index? Yeah, so generally it is not a good idea to put reference numbers in abstract. If at all you want, you give the full reference in brackets, name, journal, page number, et cetera. And that should be done as sparingly as possible, as much as possible you should avoid. Now H index is, if suppose I have say three papers and all three papers have been cited by others three times or more, then my H index is three. That is one paper might be cited for 100 times. Second paper might be cited for 55 times. But if the third paper is cited only three times, then I have three papers which have been cited three times or more. In other words, H index tells you, not just I publish one great paper, then I don't do anything. So H index is supposed to distinguish this. But the general understanding is that H index is good, not for individual persons. You know, I might publish one great paper, get noble price, then I might not do anything, but I think that is still okay. I'll be much happier if I got the noble price and nothing else for the rest of my life. But what is H index is supposed to measure is you look at the H index of all faculty members in a department and another department. That comparison is valid because overall if everybody is doing better, then the H index will reflect that. That is the hope. But like all things, you know, I said measurement is still subjective in most of science. And that makes it very difficult. You should look at impact, H index, everything, but you should still not be carried away just by numbers. They are finally numbers. You still have to make up your mind about the quality of some work. And that is where you should exercise your scientific expertise. And if everybody does that, I think that'll automatically happen. Hello. Hello, sir. Yeah. Sir, you have given a lot of good ideas about the writing and those things. My question is on your initial part of a presentation. That is you told me you should consistently write. That is write every day at least five sentences. That's true with all. And I guess everybody will agree with me that as we proceed, means when we were students, we used to write something. But as we started our profession, we are a little bit lazy about that. So my question is whether, what are your writing habits, your own writing habits, how you consistently keep yourself motivated to write the things? See, the easiest thing for me to write is my lecture notes. I always write my lecture notes and publish them. You know, in the search gate or some online, the thing, some NPTEL, some QTRIP course. So one thing that I always try to write is the lecture notes because that is very helpful for me. Previously I used to maintain a blog, but nowadays I don't do it. But there is lots of writing that I do along with my students, even though I don't write. They have to write every year their annual progress seminar reports. Then we sometimes have to write papers. Sometimes we have to write thesis. And then there are masters and undergrad students in the lab. And we try to make them write and along with the PhD students, I participate in overseeing that writing activity. One thing that we haven't been very successful is in making lots of technical write-ups and reports and sharing them online. We do some amount of it. And that is one of the things that keeps me, you know, involved in writing. But still, overall, I might not write every day five sentences, but over a period of a week, I tend to write at least some five to 10 pages of many different qualities. Sometimes I'm very happy with my writing. Then I go to town sharing with my colleagues, saying, okay, I wrote these notes, if you want to take a look at it. Sometimes I put it up online, saying that anybody can use it. Sometimes it's not of that great quality, so I quietly bury it, move on. Nobody knows that I try writing. What is actually a lecture notes? Lecture notes is I will put the objective, then I will ask a question, which is the motivating question for that class. Then I will describe the concept and I will explain how that question is answered. Then I'll have a few MCQ kind of questions, multiple choice questions, so that the students can test for themselves whether they have understood. And then there is an in-class tutorial, sometimes I make them do in the class, or sometimes there are assignments at the end, and the solutions are posted separate. So this is something that we tried to write. I think if everybody who teaches starts writing this, then it will be really helpful. I found mostly it is helpful for me when I'm writing, then I have to be very careful, I have to think through, and then I have to process the information in one way, so it is very helpful. It's also helpful for the students because then they have something to... To get scientific papers published in standard or reputed journals, it takes around even one year sometimes. In spite of it being reviewed at different stages by great scientists, technologists, and engineers, still we find some papers getting published with so many common errors. So what is your suggestion to make all these papers error-free? Because I've gone through so many papers with very common errors, like cope up with, discuss about, can be able, one another instead of each other. There are so many papers, even I have done a small research on this, still we find very standard journal papers with more common errors. So why don't you suggest to include at least one English faculty as one of the panel members or reviewers? See, the problem is A, people are not interested in the English aspects as long as the technical communication happens. The journals, they are really not too much worried. But actually, sir, in UK papers and US papers, we don't find any errors. But not strictly true. I have found errors. Almost 90% sir, almost 90%. But in most of the reputed journals, including IEEE, Taylor and Francis, Springer, ScienceDirect, there are so many errors. Even I have a print screen evidences. No, I know that there are lots of errors. In spite of getting reviewed at different stages. But as a reviewer, I never look at English and if I have any comments about English, I just write that these are the English things they have to correct. But finally, my aim as a technical person is not about the English. It's about the... So if the English comes in the way of communicating the concept, then the paper gets rejected by me. It is a formal document. We feel very since the errors. But the errors will be there. I mean, how can you avoid it anyway? Because it is a formal document. It is in a very reputed journal. I understand. It can be error free. No, but see, that's what I'm telling you. It's a personal thing. I can't go put rules for everybody. And especially when there are no rules for something. Everybody might have their own opinion. Now, simple grammatical errors, should they be there? I think they should not be there. But then there is a problem because we use only English. For example, if they have allowed me to write in my mother tongue, maybe I'll not write grammatically wrong things. So scientific communication is basically because somebody who is from anywhere, Japan, China, India, Brazil or Egypt, want to communicate a scientific thing. Now, I would like it to be in as much as possible, grammatically correct English. But that is still not the primary aim. The primary aim is the scientific concept. Now, if English comes in the way of that concept explanation, the paper should be rejected. If there are other grammatical errors, they should be corrected. That is why we have editors. We have copy-setters and we have copy editors and all these things. In spite of all the stages, still there are some journals where we have common errors. But errors can always happen. I mean, I don't think in no industrial process, you will have 100% error-free things. Let me put it that way. And publication is a major process. I don't think you will have error-free. And the community can find out which are the error-free ones and appreciate them. That is it.