The feature article by Sheila List and Michael McDaniel, concerning the practice of when to state empirical hypothesis before analyses or not, was disturbing. At the recent SOB conference at the University of Nebraska the consensus was that the observed lack of proper training was evident in our best journals. The interpretation of the HARKing practice as a QRP is false. My deeper question is how can we reverse this decline in quality of I-O and OB research? Several editors of leading journals expressed concern about the poor training of their reviewers and that so many well-trained people do not make time to review papers. We had no quick fix. Returning to this strange new word called HARKing, I agreed that submitting false information and selective reporting with intention to misinform are not questionable, but unethical and may be illegal. When discovered, these practices need to be punished by the research community.