Science is international, but enforcement of ethical conduct of research is local. Few countries have anything like the ORI. What does an editor do when someone alleges misconduct, the responsible author's institution refuses to investigate, and no national standard exists (9–12)? Editors do not have the legal standing, expertise, time, or money to go into foreign institutions, secure evidence, and spend months or years uncovering misconduct, adjudicating, hearing appeals, and sanctioning offenders. Yet, if editors refuse to publish work from institutions in countries lacking standard investigative procedures, which include, for example, the United Kingdom (9) and India, they would limit the flow of good science, reduce the value of their journals, and be grossly unfair to honest authors. International organizations of editors are trying to correct the situation. The Committee on Publication Ethics, originated by British medical editors, has an important advisory function, but because it lacks legal standing and the power to punish or exonerate, it will ultimately be ineffective against recalcitrant authors. Fear of legal action is impeding an investigation in Japan, another country with no established system for handling allegations of research misconduct (13). Clearly, the solutions must be local, and editors are working through the Committee on Publication Ethics to encourage their governments to set up systems like the ORI, something we believe that a country simply must do if it expects the world to take its science seriously. This task will seem endless. However, in the meantime, if local systems for investigating allegations of scientific misconduct fail, an editor can withdraw a journal's support for a suspected fraudulent article (14–15) or publish an expression of concern (2, 9, 12, 16–19).