Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33911028›Full record

ArticleTobacco control2021

Paying lip service to publication ethics: scientific publishing practices and the Foundation for a Smoke-Free World.

Tess Legg, Michél Legendre, Anna B Gilmore

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Tobacco control, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. "Keep it a secret": Leaked Documents Suggest Philip Morris International, and Its Japanese Affiliate, Continue to Exploit Science for Profit.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Influence of Disclosed and Undisclosed Funding Sources in Tobacco Harm Reduction Discourse: A Social Network Analysis.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2023
    Review
  9. Philip Morris International's Formula 1 Sponsorship-Linked Marketing: Transformation From Marlboro to Mission Winnow.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2023
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Tess LeggTobacco Control Research Group, Department for Health, University of Bath, Bath, UK t.legg@bath.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0003-3157-048X
Michél LegendreCorporate Accountability, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Anna B GilmoreTobacco Control Research Group, Department for Health, University of Bath, Bath, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0281-1248

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Litigation forced the dissolution of three major tobacco industry-funded organisations because of their egregious role in spreading scientific misinformation. Yet in 2017, a new scientific organisation-the Foundation for a Smoke-Free World (FSFW)-was launched, funded entirely by tobacco corporation Philip Morris International (PMI). Experts fear FSFW similarly serves to benefit its funder's scientific and political agenda. We present three case studies of FSFW's publishing practices to explore: whether FSFW and its affiliates are acting with scientific integrity in their attempts to publish research; how conflicts of interest (COI) are governed in the journals FSFW targets; whether scientific publishing needs to be better protected from the tobacco industry in light of this, and if so, how. FSFW and its grantees have resorted to repeated obfuscation when publishing their science. FSFW staff have failed to act transparently and arguably have sought control over editorial processes (at times facilitated by PR firm, Ruder Finn). FSFW-funded organisations (including its Italian 'Centre of Excellence') and researchers affiliated with FSFW (including those working as editors and peer-reviewers) have failed to disclose their links to FSFW and PMI. While journals also failed to apply their COI policies, including on tobacco industry-funded research, the findings highlight that such policies are almost entirely dependent on researchers fully declaring all potential COIs. The paper explores ways to address these problems, including via standardised reporting of COI and funding in journals; journal policies prohibiting publication of tobacco industry-funded science; development of an author-centric database of financial interests; and legally mandated tobacco industry financial contributions to fund science on new tobacco and nicotine products.

Indexed as

Tobacco IndustryTobacco ProductsConflict of InterestHumansPublishingharm reductionsurveillance and monitoringtobacco industry

Identifiers

PMID33911028
PMCPMC8606453

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.