Concerning the comment on indigenous researchers, I think the best way to navigate that, as someone who is not indigenous myself, is going to the community and asking them what they need and, for the capstone organization, looking to have representation and having that ongoing consultation. This is something that we do ourselves with our indigenous researchers and our indigenous students. I think the way to better represent them and to know what they need is to go directly to them and have them around the table.
In terms of fraud, as Maydianne mentioned, it's about rigorous peer review. There's no tolerance for fake information, but we need a process that's more rigorous and does not penalize everyone for bad behaviour. Hopefully, having more rigid criteria would mean that people are not producing articles in volume but in quality.
I think that's why this study is currently happening, too. How do we have those criteria and that impact to ensure that this doesn't keep on happening and there is quality versus quantity being produced?