 Christina, how do you define research misconduct? And in terms of ethical issues, what are the top trends that you have noticed at APS? So we define research misconduct the same way that the federal government defines it, which is fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism. Mostly the fabrication and falsifications determined in images or data, and then plagiarisms within the text. At APS, we have not very many instances of misconduct. But the main ethics issues that we do see are related to figure presentation. We see images that have been cut in pieces and rearranged. Or contrast has been adjusted so much that we can't tell whether lanes or bands are connected. We have issues related to authorship disputes, not many. But they often take up a lot of time. So I do encourage people to set authorship early and consider it often because they are quite ugly. And what happens is that if we find that there's a problem with authorship, we can't publish the paper until those are resolved. And that's frustrating for everybody. For figure manipulation, we can ask for corrections. And as long as we know that the original captures exist and that the data are OK, we can get a correction and proceed with publication. Those are our big issues right now. And luckily, we don't have very many issues of misconduct, maybe a few a year. But those are quite rare.