But if journalists are protected from identifying their resources in court , is normally that the same kind of protection our “sources” — our referees — get when they share confidential info with us so when we promise to safeguard their anonymity? If this is not the case, why not? And is there a thing that we, the editors of scientific journals, could do to make certain that we have “privilege”? The ruling favored us this correct time, setting some sort of precedent for the safety of confidential information at scientific journals, but the matter is far from closed, and heaven knows what will happen next time.. Sighs of rest from the whole editorial community were heard this weekend, carrying out a ruling denying Pfizer accces to confidential peer-review papers from the NEJM.Included in the PEPFAR budget, Bush provides asked for $300 million for the Global Fund To Combat Helps, Tuberculosis and Malaria and $491 million for other activities, including TB applications . In addition to the PEPFAR financing, the budget proposal would offer $300 million for the President’s Malaria Initiative and ongoing malaria programs world-wide . The budget proposal also demands $3 billion for the Millennium Challenge Corporation, a scheduled program meant to encourage financial and political reforms in developing countries, VOA News reports .