On 2014 Jun 19, Evangelos C. Alexopoulos commented:

Dear colleagues, I have raised recently several concerns and comments on the validity of your original work[1].

Based on your answer[2], you seem unaware of the fact that the ultimate judging lies with the reader and the criticism in a scientific work implies a potential influence of the work and simultaneously provides an opportunity to the authors to clarify issues and strengthen their work. You did take only a very limited advantage of it; the readers were informed on the previously hidden identity of the “specially designed occupational skin disease questionnaire” [2].

Most of the other critical issues raised, have remained obscure and a few more were added to the previous ones following your response [2]. It is obvious that not much attention paid on my comments[1]. You have answered on specific job types other than the specific ones initially asked; how convincing might be the argument that your “good luck” excused the unlikelihood to trace 200 employees with exactly 5 years of employment in 1 up to 4 small and medium size companies of any kind. Any careful reader would have questioned that. In another point, you have strongly emphasized the three young colleagues’ contribution in the project but I have wondered on a very different issue. I have asked how could be all these 104 small and medium size companies spread over all regions of Greece to be officially served (contracted) for occupational health services by one licensed occupational health physician? Is it possible and legal?

Unexpectedly given your team’ cumulative research and publishing experience, you choose to question my motivation and reasoning and to falsify my arguments. You adopt this reluctant bipolar defensive/offensive strategy rather than trying to support and validate your work. The contribution– major or not – of any scientific work is not commonly judged by the authors. On the other hand, the authors and researchers should secure the truth, which must be inherent, both in interventional and observational research.

June 19, 2014 Evangelos C. Alexopoulos

[1] Alexopoulos EC. Work-related Dermatoses in Greece. Saf Health Work. 2014;5(1):39-40. [2] Zorba E, Bazas T, Karpouzis A, Konstandinidis T. Considerations concerning the epidemiology of occupational dermatoses. Saf Health Work. 2014;5(1):40-1.

On 2014 Jun 19, Evangelos C. Alexopoulos commented:

Dear colleagues, I have raised recently several concerns and comments on the validity of your original work[1].

Based on your answer[2], you seem unaware of the fact that the ultimate judging lies with the reader and the criticism in a scientific work implies a potential influence of the work and simultaneously provides an opportunity to the authors to clarify issues and strengthen their work. You did take only a very limited advantage of it; the readers were informed on the previously hidden identity of the “specially designed occupational skin disease questionnaire” [2].

Most of the other critical issues raised, have remained obscure and a few more were added to the previous ones following your response [2]. It is obvious that not much attention paid on my comments[1]. You have answered on specific job types other than the specific ones initially asked; how convincing might be the argument that your “good luck” excused the unlikelihood to trace 200 employees with exactly 5 years of employment in 1 up to 4 small and medium size companies of any kind. Any careful reader would have questioned that. In another point, you have strongly emphasized the three young colleagues’ contribution in the project but I have wondered on a very different issue. I have asked how could be all these 104 small and medium size companies spread over all regions of Greece to be officially served (contracted) for occupational health services by one licensed occupational health physician? Is it possible and legal?

Unexpectedly given your team’ cumulative research and publishing experience, you choose to question my motivation and reasoning and to falsify my arguments. You adopt this reluctant bipolar defensive/offensive strategy rather than trying to support and validate your work. The contribution– major or not – of any scientific work is not commonly judged by the authors. On the other hand, the authors and researchers should secure the truth, which must be inherent, both in interventional and observational research.

June 19, 2014 Evangelos C. Alexopoulos

[1] Alexopoulos EC. Work-related Dermatoses in Greece. Saf Health Work. 2014;5(1):39-40. [2] Zorba E, Bazas T, Karpouzis A, Konstandinidis T. Considerations concerning the epidemiology of occupational dermatoses. Saf Health Work. 2014;5(1):40-1.