It's almost always that. They start to realize that something stinks.

When a paper comes in from South Korea, you have to make the assumption that they are telling a true account. It is not a system for policing. It's a system for detecting whether the science seems good. It cannot be a system for policing.

Studies on this topic have either not been done or not been published, or I haven't seen them.

It's like theft. We can have every law there is, but we're never going to eliminate it completely. It's the same with fraud. There's always going to be some people who take the short cut.

The single thing the journals can do is make the authors visibly responsible for the work because, in the end, the editors can't be there. Credit and blame go together.

The market is misreading and misunderstanding the story. The story is the capital account, not, I repeat not, the current account.