email on eugenie@eugeniereichlaw.com to join the mailing list, or to RSVP if you don't like meetup.

Walkies!!!

also, some might have confused do you believe it exists with have you heard of it

As a parent I can share there's eight years between there's no such thing as the Easter bunny and Zombies don't exist.

I would read an article discussing the work of the other 8 students.

I don't remember one materials science expert in that original WSJ article. Why were experts in the actual subject not consulted? Why rely on the words of economists that this is something revelatory?

It's fishy but a case for fraud will fail unless you can unpack how the fish personally benefit

Thank you. It was never a bestseller, in the days when it was overpriced a note from a reader would say: I enjoyed your book which I borrowed from a friend who stole it from a library, but you are missing the following points ... This is the kind of reader who most enjoys the book and I appreciate.

thank you, you can find second edition with same content affordably on Amazon

#aimos2025

What this is not: it is not mindreading. We don't pretend to know people's innermost thoughts or feelings. Instead we talk about when it is or is not fair to draw an inference of intent from patterns that include data mishandling, context (like need to satisfy reviewers), and responses to questions.

Whether you want to investigate, whistleblow and enforce each instance or let some examples go as "errors" for pragmatic or resourcing reasons is different. But to see it with clarity privately is still useful.

Some in science say simply retract if wrong: who cares if it's fraud. But fraud matters. Someone making a mistake shares information and others find the error. Those committing fraud are more likely to hide data, actively confuse, misdirect and the wrong information accumulates or entrenches.