Dr Ackerman did indeed ask the copy editor to delete the words "for treatment" when he saw the edited copy before publication; failure to do so was our oversight and I apologize for this. The other changes that Dr Ackerman objects to, however, were all present in the edited copy that he saw for approval before publication and he raised no objections to them at that time—in fact, he complimented the copy editor for "a superb job of copy editing." In copyediting, there is always the danger that, in trying to clarify the meaning, the copy editor might change the meaning. It is for this reason that we send the edited copy to the author for approval before publication. I apologize that, in this case, the process did not produce a letter that met the author's satisfaction.
Iverson C. A Copy Editor Has No Right to Distort an Author's Meaning—Reply. Arch Dermatol. 2002;138(1):125-126. doi:10.1001/archderm.138.1.125