|
 Also new is the report from
the Medical Dermatology Society
and the Internet
Dermatology Society.
We welcome the participation
of these two new, growing
groups, and look forward to
their participation in future
issues.
In addition, Claire Haycox
continues her series of
reviews of multimedia
educational dermatology
works and has initiated a
table of comparisons as
reviews continue. We have
accrued several other pieces
for future issues. Please
recommend CD-ROM,
computer-based tutorials,
VCR tapes or whatever you
encounter. The book reviews
will also continue; again,
please state your preference.
Skin Cap had an impact on
all of us this year. From
miracle drug to sham, its
rise was almost as dramatic
as its fall. The article by
Crutchfield, Lewis and
Zelickson, published here
earlier this year has drawn
our first flurry of
letters. Yes, we are angry
at being deceived by the
manufacturer. None the less,
one must wonder what in
the preparation makes it
appear so much more effective
than its ingredients in other
bases. Is Skin Cap more
effective than other
topicals with similar
ingredients? Conventional
double-blind trails are lacking
despite the testimonials. The
letters are a welcome addition
to the Journal. One
unwelcome accompaniment to the
Skin Cap scenario was the
realization this summer that
parts of the article by
Crutchfield, Lewis and Zelickson
were taken verbatim from a
similar article published by
the same authors in the Journal of
Geriatric Dermatology
(5:21-24, 1997). No journal
appreciates duplicate
publication, not even a fledgling
journal in a new medium such
as ours. As stated in the
instructions to authors,
"Information that has been
published or is being considered
for publication elsewhere will
not be accepted." The article
(vol 3, no 1, 4) has been marked
as a duplicate publication on
the Dermatology Online Journal,
one of the advantages of
electronic publishing.
Please join us for this issue.
Your comments will be appreciated.
Phil Fleckman, M.D.
Chief Editor
|
