We accept only completely original content

[DavidLeePortwood]

The above "We accept only completely original content" is given as the reason my article "Virtual Net Metering" was rejected. However, the article is indeed completely original content, in the sense that it wasn't plagiarized. I wrote it myself, following a Google search of the subject. I reviewed several online articles, pulled a relevant quote, and then wrote my article. Other than the quote, I copied nothing from anyone.

I think, what the editor means, is that I didn't have anything unique to add, and CC doesn't need any more generic articles on this topic. This I can understand and accept, although of course I'm disappointed. I would just like to know, is this the case, or am I actually being accused of plagiarism?

David Portwood

[mnicol22]

Hi David,

I can only assume that the quote you used raised a red flag during the plagiarism check. I can't see any harm in using a quote as long as you cite your source properly. Did you mention who the original author is and where this quote is to be found?

[DavidLeePortwood]

I did fully identify the source of each quote: author, publication, publication date.

It never occurred to me that using a quote might cause me trouble. I write for several sites, less often for CC. Perhaps I was thinking of another site that will rarely pay for an article that doesn't include a quoted reference, to distinguish the article as being something other than an "op-ed" piece. I would much prefer writing op-ed pieces, of course. I don't understand why people bother having opinions, when they can just ask mine.

I wrote several energy articles in response to an emailed plea from CC to help them stock their fridge because they were expecting a visit from a whale in the next couple of days, who would snarf 200+ energy articles en masse. I purposely made certain that each of my articles has at least one quoted reference. No good deed goes unpunished, right?

David Portwood

[csjwilkinson]

How long was the quote?