ArticleTobacco control2021
Paying lip service to publication ethics: scientific publishing practices and the Foundation for a Smoke-Free World.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Critical appraisal of interventional clinical trials assessing heated tobacco products: a systematic review.Tobacco control · 2024Pooled it
- "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 · 2025Article
- PMI-funded foundation for a smoke-free world: application of criteria to assess funding models that include financial support from the tobacco industry.Tobacco control · 2025Article
- 20th anniversary of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control coming into force: time for a step change in ambition.Lancet (London, England) · 2025Article
- Seeking to be seen as legitimate members of the scientific community? An analysis of British American Tobacco and Philip Morris International's involvement in scientific events.Tobacco control · 2024Article
- Document analysis of the Foundation for a Smoke-Free World's scientific outputs and activities: a case study in contemporary tobacco industry agnogenesis.Tobacco control · 2024Article
- What if… your research is suddenly affiliated with a tobacco manufacturing company?BMJ open respiratory research · 2024Article
- 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 · 2023Review
- 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 · 2023Review
- Evidence of potential tobacco industry influence inTobacco control · 2023Article
- Lessons Learned on Addressing Racism: Recommendations from The Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco's Racial Equity Task Force.Addiction (Abingdon, England) · 2022Article
- Trends in smoking prevalence and attitude toward tobacco control among members of the JCA in 2004-2017.Cancer science · 2022Article
- The Tobacco Industry's Renewed Assault on Science: A Call for a United Public Health Response.American journal of public health · 2022Article
- The Science for Profit Model-How and why corporations influence science and the use of science in policy and practice.PloS one · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.