(11h) Reply by Charles Crutchfield MD
|
|
Dear Editor, Dermatology Online Journal:
In response to the editorial comment about overlap of material published in two reports on the effectiveness of a new treatment for psoriasis (Dermatology Online Journal and the Journal of Geriatric Dermatology) , I would like to clearly state that every case and photograph reported both journals was unique and never reported anywhere else. I believe that my submission in the DOJ, when taken as a whole, was original in the sense that the case reported and the photographs were absolutely unique.
|
|
It was my simple intent to inform our colleagues of a seemingly new
extremely effective treatment for the treatment of psoriasis. I shared
some information certain sections because such information was of my own
original thoughts in both reports and the information directly supported
the unique cases. None-the-less, I respectfully and attentively accept
the editorial criticism from the publishers of the DOJ concerning the
overlap of introductory and discussion material from the two reports. The
format of the electronic journal was new and I, perhaps naively, was not
fully aware that the overlap of my own original thoughts would be
problematic. I have found this situation to be enlightening and
instructive. As primary author I take full responsibility for the content
the reports.
I have the utmost respect for both the Dermatology Online Journal and Journal of Geriatric Dermatology and I would never wish to detract from the quality of either. I believe that it is of the utmost importance to maintain the constitutional and scientific integrity of both journals. I offer my most sincere apology to both Journals and their respective readers. I certainly did not intend to deceive either journal by sharing some of my own unique thoughts in both reports. As mentioned earlier, like most clinicians who encountered Skin-Cap, I was very intrigued excited about a newly emerging and extremely effective treatment psoriasis and I only wanted to share this information, in a fashion, with my colleagues in two reports, representing four very unique cases. I am very disappointed that the editors have elected to place a "duplicate" label on the publication when the core material; i.e. the patient, case, and photographs were never duplicated. I have respectfully pointed this out to the editors and requested that they reconsider this action. They have refused, without comment, on the essential fact the core material is not duplicate. Resultantly, their deliberate actions must be regarded, at least, as inaccurate, misleading, and may be potentially damaging. I would strongly encourage the editors to re-evaluate the situation and process it in a more fair, precise, responsible, and appropriate manner. Sincerely and Respectfully Submitted,,
|
