研究函是从一个调查员，A，B，C和D团队提交的。在他们报告的情况下，他们报告说：A参与计划研究，收集患者样品，以及写作稿件;B测量IL-10多态性并分析结果;C参与监督多态性的测量和写作稿件;D参与规划研究并写作稿件。这封信是同行评审和公布的。相应的作者是D.十天后，从D来自D的不同机构工作的B和C收到了一封信，邀请我们发布错误。他们的实质性更正并与“此外，我们希望指出B和C同样地指出本报告的内容”。C还封闭了一封信给D的副本，说明他对其他人从未见过的证据是非常不满意的，这可能已经纠正了如所示的错误。C认为不道德不是展示主编证明。关于研究合作的细分的进一步强烈评论。 D replied “surprised and saddened.”He argued that in the collaboration “the idea for this research was therefore entirely generated by us”. Furthermore, he said, B and C “saw and agreed to all the changes in the short manuscript and the final version that was submitted to the journal with all our signatures.” He went on: “I had to review the proofs within 24 hours and fax them back. There was no time to send this to the other authors for their approval (and we do not do this routinely in our department as it is usually the responsibility of the corresponding author). I am very concerned that you have sent off a letter to the journal without the courtesy of letting us see it beforehand. This is most unusual behaviour and can only have a damaging effect. The erratum is curious as these changes should have been made in the original manuscript.” What do we do about the alleged and apparently disputed erratum? Should journals have a clear policy about authors (all, some, the senior, or only the corresponding) seeing galley proofs? If so,what should the policy be?
有责任确定是否存在错误。编辑认为，如果存在，那么它是一种解释性而不是实质性错误。作者没有看到编辑的稿件。人们同意，与其他作者明确变化是相应的作者的工作。D从协作中移除了B和C.整个情况不是期刊的错，而是作者自己。编辑器应该：要么：邀请B和C要向编辑写一封信并将其显示给A和D进行评论。这样，编辑可以将这个问题作为读者透气;或者：回到作者的机构，并让他们解决争议。
争议继续。