2000年3月，代表全国筛查计划提交给x杂志的研究函。他还提交了一个委托编辑才与同一主题有关的y杂志。与此同时，作者将副本的副本发送到B，这是该主题的公认权威。他明确表示，他们是保密的，然后在新闻中，并要求有关他可以在其中包含的B的测试的一些信息。他还建议他希望如果被接受，他可能希望回应研究函。B不再回复，但在3月底，他提交了一篇论文Z的论文。本文将筛选计划与B的筛选计划进行了比较，并在作者A的未发表的研究信中详细说明了所建议的筛查编程，并结束了前者是非常优越的。所有innical z的编辑编辑z的纸张向作者A进行审查。作者A对此并不是太深刻的印象。他留下了更不太令人沮丧的是，借机会写一份专门涉及机密材料，他展示了他的文件。 He was also concerned about B knowing he was the reviewer as he had only recently persuaded B to join him in a joint grant proposal and he did not want it prejudiced by bad feeling between the two of them. Perhaps it is not necessary to add that the arguments are all to do with which particular screening programme might be accepted by the NHS. Not only prestige but also possibly income from a patented testing tool may be involved. Should the editor accept A’s view that B’s paper is poor, or should he send it to another reviewer? Does it matter, since the ethical issue means that B’s paper would be unacceptable even if a new reviewer liked it? How should the editor deal with B, in pointing out the ethical issue, bearing in mind the delicacy of the situation?
除非收到令人满意的解释，否则应排除_ B的纸张。_存在一个时序的问题，特别是在申请专利时。_ Paper B已作为评论提交，但被撰写更多作为纸张。如果纸质A发表，评论将是可接受的。_它有人建议编辑确定纸张A的发生了什么，如果发布，他应该确切地找到，因为这将决定时间表。
X纸杂志于12月份发表，Z纸缺乏缺乏优点。提交人要求在他在研究授权提案中与作者B合作时，不公开。他认为这可能被诉讼诉讼归因于Z卦。请求受到尊重。