This is the Message Centre for Natalie

Upset and Bemused

Post 1

Peter aka Sociable

Dear Editor. Some time ago I submitted an article which was accepted for possible inclusion in the edited guide under the title: “Hidradenitis Suppurativa - The Need for Answers” http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/brunel/A53322284 (Sub-Editors version as at today’s date) This had originally included (from day one) a very detailed confirmation in its introduction that the first part of my discussion paper was made up of extracts from another source fully accredited and linked to from within the article as follows: http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/brunel/A52917159 The Nature of the Beast (Defining Hidradenitis Suppurativa) Introduction. Before looking in detail at what Hidradenitis Suppurativa means from a sufferer's perspective, it is perhaps useful to first refer to the accepted clinical descriptions of the condition in order to set the scene and provide suitable points of reference for that perspective. There are many different "textbook" descriptions of Hidradenitis Suppurativa, many of which are woefully inadequate, which may explain some of the common misconceptions held not only by some sufferers but also lamentably by many members of the medical community. Of the many available medical sources, I have decided to use extracts from the excellent eMedicine article about Hidradenitis Suppurativa written by Naveen Pokala, MBBS, MS, FRCS, Staff Physician, Department of Surgery, Bronx Lebanon Hospital, as it is clearly one of the most comprehensive, accurate, well researched and importantly up to date medical sources currently available. For full article see: http://www.emedicine.com/med/topic2717.htm So just why is it then I am so upset and bemused you may ask? I should perhaps explain at this point that I am actually a major contributor to the main international group set up for fellow sufferers of this particular medical condition and also played a part in the creation of the first international database of medical research data on the condition as well as previously having held a post as a Visiting Research Fellow in the field of Disability and Social Exclusion and have also had previous papers of mine published in professional journals and also co-wrote the UK chapter of a European reference work on Social Work and Social Policy, so am not a complete novice. What I am upset and bemused by therefore is being met with accusations of, "plagiarism", failing to properly research my material and/or breach of copyright, which in this case I believe almost borders on defamation rather than just being highly offensive to somebody who is a new voluntary contributor to the guide. Not least given the full reference and attribution I had included along with the link I gave to the original information which is clearly already freely available and in the public domain, but which for some reason the sub-editor chose to remove both my explanation for and link to in the edited version. What prompts me to write to you rather than simply walk away though is the rather disturbing notion then put forward by the same person that all that I really needed to do was to simply put the "offending" material concerned "into my own words" in order for it to be able to be included in the edited guide as "original" material. To see exactly what I mean I invite you to please refer to the conversation found here. http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/brunel/F13851710?thread=6662760&post=85650505#p85650505 The one funny aspect to all this is that the only other time in my life I was ever accused of infringing copyright and/or plagiarism is when posts of mine were inappropriately removed for quoting from my own work on the Ouch message boards even though it was always clearly indicated that this was me quoting myself, the irony of which still makes me chuckle. So please tell me does this sound like how H2G2 Peer reveiw is supposed to work, and if so what does it say for the meaning of the words “original material” and therefore the validity of the Edited Guide if this is the case?


Upset and Bemused

Post 2

Titania (gone for lunch)

Hi Sociable!

I believe Natalie is no longer part of the h2g2 staff. I think you might have a better chance of receiving a reply if you leave a message over here: <./>U284</.>


Key: Complain about this post

Upset and Bemused

More Conversations for Natalie

Write an Entry

"The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is a wholly remarkable book. It has been compiled and recompiled many times and under many different editorships. It contains contributions from countless numbers of travellers and researchers."

Write an entry
Read more