Thank you.
I'm going to turn to Mr. Oransky as well, right off the bat.
Coincidentally, today I just got a news notification on my phone from the journal Science about yet another fraud in the science world around peer review. Hackers got in and were pretending to be scientists writing favourable reviews of things. It is a big problem.
As I mentioned in an earlier testimony, there are between one and eight million papers published every year. It's an absolute tsunami of papers. I think this has increased dramatically in recent years. You'd probably know exactly that rate. I know colleagues of mine who are just refusing to review papers anymore because it could be that it's all they do.
I guess you've been talking about some of the ways we can get around this and some of the ways we can try to reduce this problem. Part of it, as you say, is this pressure to publish quantity and maybe game the system for the quality.
We've all been talking about DORA here and there. I just wanted to maybe give you some more time to speak to that initiative, how it works and how we perhaps should be using that more than other ways of measuring the quality of science produced.