Dec. 10th, 2008
consent facepalm...
Dec. 10th, 2008 02:48 pmoh dear god. Okay, pictures in a case report. No consent. no consent for even the reporting of the case, let alone the images. Eyes are blacked out, but there's a tattoo on one body part.
....And the author says 'oh, the eyes are blacked out, what's a tattoo here or there?'
Excuse me while I shove their face in the concept that tattoos are used to identify dead bodies and are far more likely to stick in someone's mind than someone's face - which can change due to the light/health/etc.
Dear FSM, we need consent for any case-specific images that show flesh, never mind if identifying marks appear or not.
And editorial and pre-accept have been getting really fucking snotty recently when we report errors that they forgot about. Dear previous depts, all of this should be settled before it gets to us. It is not our bloody job to be the guardians at the gate or making sure that articles have tables/figures/chunks of articles. (of course, being the last port of call, we're the ones that get it in the neck if these are published without said items)
....And the author says 'oh, the eyes are blacked out, what's a tattoo here or there?'
Excuse me while I shove their face in the concept that tattoos are used to identify dead bodies and are far more likely to stick in someone's mind than someone's face - which can change due to the light/health/etc.
Dear FSM, we need consent for any case-specific images that show flesh, never mind if identifying marks appear or not.
And editorial and pre-accept have been getting really fucking snotty recently when we report errors that they forgot about. Dear previous depts, all of this should be settled before it gets to us. It is not our bloody job to be the guardians at the gate or making sure that articles have tables/figures/chunks of articles. (of course, being the last port of call, we're the ones that get it in the neck if these are published without said items)