查看本页中文译文>>
View a Chinese translation of this page >>

Instructions for Authors

For guidelines on BMJ Journals policy and submission please click on links below.
Manuscript Formatting
Editorial policies
Patient consent forms
Licence forms
Peer Review Process
Online First process

Editorial policy

The principal concern of Tobacco Control is to provide a forum for research, analysis, commentary, and debate on policies, programmes, and strategies that are likely to further the objectives of a comprehensive tobacco control policy. In papers submitted for review the introduction should indicate why the research reported or issues discussed are important in terms of controlling tobacco use, and the discussion section should include an analysis of how the research reported contributes to tobacco control objectives.

Papers firmly anchored to a strategic policy and programme context are more likely to be accepted for publication. As the journal seeks to reach an international readership, authors should consider whether their intended submissions address issues or themes, which are likely to be of interest to researchers working in other nations. Overly parochial issues, which contain few lessons for tobacco control policy outside a paper's local context, are unlikely to be given high priority. The manuscripts editors will generally not give high priority to:

• Studies of smoking prevalence and its correlates . These are best suited to national journals. Few people living outside a country are interested in whether that country has 30% or 35% of smokers.
• Knowledge, attitudes, behaviour (KAB) studies of particular population groups or health professionals. Again, these are better suited to national journals or to health professional speciality journals . Few people in other countries are likely to be interested in (for example) whether nurses in a regional hospital are interested in helping patients quit. National studies, and those taking such studies into original areas are of more interest.
• Reports that evoke unanimous "so what?" responses from the editors. These are papers with findings that seem to hold no obvious importance for changing policy or practice in tobacco control. They often display methodological finery, but don't take us anywhere important or interesting.
• Opinion pieces where the opinions are unoriginal, poorly argued, naïve or disregard for important ethical issues in favour of sloganeering.
• Papers that show the authors have never opened Tobacco Control and do not understand its primary focus on tobacco control rather than on tobacco and its use and health consequences. We are interested in such papers, but only if their authors address the implications of their findings for tobacco control.
• Papers with glaringly obvious, fatal methodological problems.
• Papers on subjects that require highly technical or discipline-specific language unlikely to be understood by the majority of readers.
• Papers which are replications of already well-established findings or offer little new information.
• Local studies where the implications for the journal's international audience are unclear.
• Reports written for governments or local health authorities that someone thought might be given a quick make-over and submitted as a journal paper.

 

Tobacco Control is willing to consider papers based wholly or in part on material published on the Internet. However authors should consider an editorial on this subject: Prior publication on the web: new journal policy. The editor retains the customary right to make changes in style and if necessary to shorten, with the approval of the author(s), material accepted for publication.

Tobacco Control follows BMJ in policies related to Scientific Misconduct and takes seriously its responsibilities. Please review Scientific Misconduct for more information.

Tobacco Industry

Tobacco Control will not consider for publication papers reporting work funded, in whole or in part, by a tobacco company or tobacco industry organization. Nor will the journal consider papers by authors who accept tobacco industry funding, including funding for research costs, for all or part of any author’s salary, or other forms of personal remuneration. For further information, please read this editorial giving the reasoning behind the journal’s policy. Failure to declare competing interests at submission, or when an article is commissioned, can result in immediate rejection of the paper. If a competing interest comes to light after publication, Tobacco Control will issue a formal correction to or retraction of the whole paper, as appropriate.

Open Access

Authors can choose to have their article published Open Access for a fee of £1950 (plus applicable VAT).

Colour figure charges

During submission you will be asked whether or not you agree to pay for the colour print publication of your colour images. This service is available to any author publishing within this journal for a fee of £250 per article. Authors can elect to publish online in colour and black and white in print, in which case the appropriate selection should be made upon submission.

Revised manuscripts

When uploading a revised manuscript, authors should also include a separate manuscript file highlighting the tracked changes to show the Editorial Team the difference from the previous version. The tracked changes document should be uploaded as a supplement file.

Article types and word counts

• Research Papers
• Special communications
• Review articles
• Commentaries
• News analysis
• Ad watch
• Industry watch
• Advocacy in action
• Perspectives
• Covers and Cover Essays
• Brief reports
• The lighter side
• Letters to the editor (original research)
• Correspondence
• Supplements

The word count excludes the title page, abstract, tables, acknowledgements and contributions and the references. Please include the word count of your manuscript on the title page.

Research Papers

Articles reporting research work may be full length or brief reports. Papers should generally be a maximum of 3500 words in length, excluding references, abstract and "what this paper adds". Exceptions can be made to this, particularly in the case of review articles, qualitative research and tobacco industry document research where the inclusion of important quotations can expand length. The editors will consider the merits of the case for longer papers on a case-by-case basis. In the case of very long papers (more than 5000 words), the editors at their discretion may offer authors the option of page charges for excessive material judged necessary to the integrity of the paper. However, authors are strongly encouraged to observe the recommended length limitations, as excessive length may disadvantage an otherwise acceptable paper given the space limitations of the journal.

Word count: generally up to 3500 words
Tables/Illustrations: up to 5
References: up to 25

This article is subject to internal and external peer review

Special Communications

Special communications are papers that do not report original research data but which provide a discussion, analysis, or review of a particular subject.

This article is subject to internal and sometimes external peer review.

Review articles

Review articles provide a review of the literature, usually concerning a particular subject, country, or geographical region. Review manuscripts, including meta-analyses, should include an abstract with the following headings: objective, data sources, study selection, data extraction, data synthesis, and conclusions Authors submitting review manuscripts and reports of the results of meta-analyses should prepare an abstract of no more than 250 words under the following headings:

• Objective - The abstract should begin with a precise statement of the primary objective of the review. The focus of this statement should be guided by whether the review emphasises factors such as cause, diagnosis, prognosis, therapy, or prevention. It should include information about the specific population, intervention, exposure, and test or outcome that is being reviewed.
• Data sources - A succinct summary of data sources should be given, including any time restrictions. Potential sources include experts or research institutions active in the field, computerised databases and published indexes, registries, abstract booklets, conference proceedings, references identified from bibliographies of pertinent articles and books, and companies or manufacturers of tests or agents being reviewed. If a bibliographic database is used, the exact indexing terms used for article retrieval should be stated, including any constraints (for example, English language or human subjects).
• Study selection - The abstract should describe the criteria used to select studies for detailed review from among studies identified as relevant to the topic. Details of selection should include particular populations, interventions, outcomes, or methodological designs. The method used to apply these criteria should be specified - for example, blind review, consensus, multiple reviewers. The proportion of initially identified studies that met selection criteria should be stated.
• Data extraction - Guidelines used for abstracting data and assessing data quality and validity (such as criteria for causal inference) should be described. The method by which the guidelines were applied should be stated: for example, independent extraction by multiple observers.
• Data synthesis - The main results of the review, whether qualitative or quantitative, should be stated. Methods used to obtain these results should be outlined. Meta-analyses should state the major outcomes that were pooled and include odds ratios or effect sizes and if possible, sensitivity analyses. Numerical results should be accompanied by confidence intervals, if applicable, and exact levels of statistical significance. Evaluations of screening and diagnostic tests should address issues of sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios, receiver operating characteristic curves, and predictive values. Assessments of prognosis should include summarisations of survival characteristics and related variables. Major identified sources of variation between studies should be stated, including differences in treatment protocols, co-interventions, confounders, outcome measures, follow up, and dropout rates.
• Conclusions - The conclusions and their applications should be clearly stated, limiting generalisation to the domain of the review. The need for new studies may be suggested.

 

Word count: by negotiation

This article is subject to internal and external peer review

Commentaries

Commentaries are opinion pieces, which are generally one to two journal pages (1000 to 1500 words) in length.

This article is subject to internal peer review

News analysis

News articles should be sent by email to marita.hefler{at}sydney.edu.au at the University of Sydney. Submissions from, or concerning, developing countries are particularly welcome. We encourage the inclusion of appropriate, high-quality illustrations to accompany news articles.

NB. If you don't own the copyright to the illustrations(s), please provide full details of their origination. Original illustrations will generally not be returned.

Ad watch

Ad Watch is a section of the journal where tobacco advertising and promotional techniques, campaigns, and strategies are profiled and analysed. The text of these articles may be brief (letting the pictures "speak for themselves") or may be more in-depth.

Word count: typically less than 500 words.

Industry watch

Articles appearing in this section review, analyse, and comment on tobacco industry activities and strategies.

Word count: usually less than 500 words.

Advocacy in action

The objective of the section, which will be limited to one article per issue is to encourage people working in tobacco control advocacy to write up accounts of advocacy episodes in which they have been engaged in such a way that readers would gain insights into strategic thinking about advocacy planning, what was done and achieved by a course of action or campaign, and what was learnt from it. All articles should address the following questions:

1. What did you set out to do?
2. Why is this important to tobacco control?
3. What are the actions and reactions (What you did and how the other side reacted)?
4. What did you achieve (or fail to achieve)?
5. Are there any lessons for advocates?

 

The maximum word count is 2000 words, plus references.

This article is subject to internal and sometimes external peer review

Perspectives

Features two divergent views on a tobacco control issue. Please email the editor (ruth.malone{at}ucsf.edu) with suggestions.

This article is subject tointernal peer review, sometimes additional commentaries commissioned

Covers and Cover Essays

Ideas and contributions for covers of Tobacco Control should be sent to the Editor. As with previous covers, we would like future covers to be colourful and creative - with a tobacco control theme. Original artwork, anti-tobacco posters, photographs, and cartoons may all be considered. Material with an international flavour is particularly desirable. Original material or high-quality, camera-ready photographs should be sent to the Editor, and will generally not be returned.

NB. If you don't own the copyright to the illustrations(s), please provide full details of their origination.

This article is subject to internal peer review

 

Brief reports

Brief reports are shorter versions of original articles, should not exceed 1500 words, and may include one table or figure.

This article is subject to internal and external peer review

The lighter side

The Lighter Side reproduces anti-tobacco cartoons. Ideas and submissions should be sent to the editor at the address above. Written permission to reproduce the cartoon should be obtained from the artist, publication, or company holding the copyright, and should be submitted with the cartoon. Parodies, satires, and other humorous material may also be submitted for this section and should be emailed to shatensteins{at}sympatico.ca , the editor of The Lighter Side. View an example article from The lighter side (PDF) [Subscription required].

Letters (original research)

Research letters intended for publication should be a maximum of 500 words, 10 references, and one table or figure. [Those responding to articles published in the journal should be submitted as described below under Correspondence.]

Research letters:

1. Should not duplicate information given in the text of the article.
2. Should have a title, brief methods discussion, and results.

 This article is subject to internal and external peer review.

Correspondence

Comments arising from recent articles published in Tobacco Control are welcome and should be submitted electronically via the website. Contributors should go to the abstract or full text of the article in question. In the right hand column on the article webpage, click on the "Submit a Response” link and complete the online form. Responses are not peer reviewed, are subject to editing, and if published are permanently linked electronically to the original paper.

Word count: up to 400 words.

Supplements

The BMJ Publishing Group journals are willing to consider publishing supplements to regular issues. Supplement proposals may be made at the request of:

1. The journal editor, an editorial board member or a learned society may wish to organise a meeting, sponsorship may be sought and the proceedings published as a supplement.
2. The journal editor, editorial board member or learned society may wish to commission a supplement on a particular theme or topic. Again, sponsorship may be sought.
3. The BMJPG itself may have proposals for supplements where sponsorship may be necessary.
4. A sponsoring organisation, often a pharmaceutical company or a charitable foundation, that wishes to arrange a meeting, the proceedings of which will be published as a supplement.

In all cases, it is vital that the journal's integrity, independence and academic reputation is not compromised in any way.

When contacting us regarding a potential supplement, please include as much of the information below as possible.

• Journal in which you would like the supplement published
• Title of supplement and/or meeting on which it is based
• Date of meeting on which it is based
• Proposed table of contents with provisional article titles and proposed authors
• An indication of whether authors have agreed to participate
• Sponsor information including any relevant deadlines
• An indication of the expected length of each paper Guest Editor proposals if appropriate

For further information on criteria that must be fulfilled, download the supplements guidelines (PDF).

Plagiarism detection

BMJ Group is a member of CrossCheck by CrossRef and iThenticate. iThenticate is a plagiarism screening service that verifies the originality of content submitted before publication. iThenticate checks submissions against millions of published research papers, and billions of web content. Authors, researchers and freelancers can also use iThenticate to screen their work before submission by visiting www.ithenticate.com.

• Blog
• Online first
• Current issue