We use cookies to improve our service and to tailor our content and advertising to you.More infoYou can manage your cookie settings via your browser at any time. To learn more about how we use cookies, please see our cookies policy.
NOT PEER REVIEWED
The editors of this journal, Tobacco Control, argue in their blog that debate about published articles should be concentrated on their rapid reaction facility. It is possible that they are making a constructive invitation to their critics to join a debating platform they might otherwise be wary of. However, the blog has been widely read as disparagement of other forms of engagement, notably social media and blogs. It is possible that the editors do not fully appreciate why people use blogs and social media to respond to papers they find problematic, and not Tobacco Control's rapid response feature. Here are several reasons:
1. Trust
Critics may consider, rightly or wrongly, that Tobacco Control has a track record of publishing papers that have dubious scientific merit, overconfident conclusions and policy recommendations that cannot be supported by the paper - almost always reinforcing a particular (abstinence-only) perspective. Critics may be concerned that their work will be treated unfairly or sidelined, or that they will be judged or ridiculed. They may distrust the editors, believe the journal is not impartial, or hold it in low esteem.
2. Conflict of interest and incentives
Not everyone is content to have their reactions edited or approved by the same people whose work they are criticising. Once a journal has published an article that is open to criticism, it develops a conflict of interest between its own r...
NOT PEER REVIEWED
The editors of this journal, Tobacco Control, argue in their blog that debate about published articles should be concentrated on their rapid reaction facility. It is possible that they are making a constructive invitation to their critics to join a debating platform they might otherwise be wary of. However, the blog has been widely read as disparagement of other forms of engagement, notably social media and blogs. It is possible that the editors do not fully appreciate why people use blogs and social media to respond to papers they find problematic, and not Tobacco Control's rapid response feature. Here are several reasons:
1. Trust
Critics may consider, rightly or wrongly, that Tobacco Control has a track record of publishing papers that have dubious scientific merit, overconfident conclusions and policy recommendations that cannot be supported by the paper - almost always reinforcing a particular (abstinence-only) perspective. Critics may be concerned that their work will be treated unfairly or sidelined, or that they will be judged or ridiculed. They may distrust the editors, believe the journal is not impartial, or hold it in low esteem.
2. Conflict of interest and incentives
Not everyone is content to have their reactions edited or approved by the same people whose work they are criticising. Once a journal has published an article that is open to criticism, it develops a conflict of interest between its own reputation and the pursuit of truth. Editors have personal and professional incentives not to look foolish or be shown up for the failure of peer review or editorial quality control. Critics may suspect that in the moderation process, editorial judgements of criticisms will be pedantic and be more concerned with the reputation of authors and the journal and be less concerned with an accurate reflection of the views of critics.
3. Style and expression
Many people prefer to communicate in their own style and not adopt the convoluted and opaque vernacular of science journal writing. They may have different types of knowledge and experience and wish to communicate in their own way. They may wish to adopt a more journalistic style or write in a way that encourages understanding. They may wish to be funny, satirical and engaging as well as rigorous. It may be a false perception that their voice is unwelcome, but it is not a surprising one. They may have their own audience which follows their commentaries, and they may wish to write for that audience.
4. Substantive reactions
Critics may wish to write at greater length and with more sophistication than a rapid response allows for, but not submit a paper for publication and wait months and spend many hours responding to poorly conceived or tactically obstructive questions from reviewers. They may not wish to have their work locked behind a paywall. They may wish to include graphics or formatting. In my own case, I wrote a comprehensive critique on my blog of the ['tobacco endgame' proposals published in 2013. There is no way I could spend months writing that up for publication in Tobacco Control, and the end result would have been a pale imitation of the original had I done so.
5. Responsiveness
Critics may be responding to 'moral panics' or media frenzies created by over-hyped science published in the journal. In this case, they need to respond rapidly and have the means to compose and publish according to their own timetable. They may wish to provide an initial reaction and then update it or add in other reactions. The "within 7-14 days" response time promised for publishing 'rapid reactions' is not consistent with the way news is consumed and commentary produced in the present era.
Other concerns include the following:
1. Wrong criteria for assessing the value of challenge
The dismissal of media other than the one preferred by and controlled by the journal's editors is disappointing. Surely, in public health, it should be the 'public' that decides where the debate is held? If criticism or insight is serious and thoughtful, then academics or editors should engage, because that's where the discussion is taking place. The journal has applied the wrong criteria by picking what sort of platform it is prepared to engage on. The decision should be based on the quality and seriousness of the criticism, not where it is produced or who produces it.
2. Self-limiting access to knowledge and insight
There is much high quality and readable analysis that is at least as valuable in intellectual depth, insight and accessibility as much formal publishing in this field [1] below. There are also trenchant and valid criticisms about motivation, ethics, intellectual quality, framing, inexperience etc on many other blogs that are well worth engaging with for anyone who wishes to - often these are opinion-formers. It is a mistake to believe that the real debate takes place in journals and everything else is just ignorant noise - it is a place to look for different insights. A bigger mistake is to disengage from 21st-century ways of communicating and sharing public knowledge. In other fields, this type of discourse is flourishing.
3. Where is the driven curiosity?
This is a critical field in which hundreds of millions of lives are at stake, and the pursuit of insight and the right thing to do should be relentless. I find it inexplicable that anyone involved should wish to shut themselves off from any form of engagement that that offers any useful insight. Where is the hunger for knowledge, the curiosity, the willingness to understand the views of people who are often the subject of study and often know far more than those doing the studying? Why would editors not want to be exposed to the feelings and adverse reactions to the research that is published in this journal? Why would they not engage more, instead of withdrawing?
Personally, I am committed challenging poor quality papers in whatever forum I can. I will continue to blog about them and expand my use of PubMed Commons, a neutral space for informed criticism. If Tobacco Control's rapid response platform provides a richer exchange, then I will try that.
NOT PEER REVIEWED The authors of this editorial assert that a journal article’s authors are “entitled to be aware of and respond to critiques”, and imply that this is only possible if critiques appear in a forum attached to the journal. Setting aside the fact that authors can easily become aware of and respond to critiques on other forums, I am curious if the authors could offer some basis for claiming such an entitlement? It seems quite contrary to all existing laws, principles of ethics, cultural norms, and standard practices that relate to commentary about published work. Moreover the behavior of many of these very authors suggests they are willing to go to great lengths to avoid being made aware of critiques.
It seems safe interpret the statement as saying that at least these particular authors would like responses to their work to appear on this page. And so, I am fulfilling their request. (Assuming this is allowed to appear, that is. I say that not because I believe there is anything in this comment that would warrant censorship, but to emphasize the blindness of this process. That is, the commentator really has no idea what will be allowed to appear.) I call the authors’ attention to two blog posts I have written critiquing this editorial to ensure they have the requested opportunity to be aware: https://antithrlies.com/2017/02/20/editors-of-t...
NOT PEER REVIEWED The authors of this editorial assert that a journal article’s authors are “entitled to be aware of and respond to critiques”, and imply that this is only possible if critiques appear in a forum attached to the journal. Setting aside the fact that authors can easily become aware of and respond to critiques on other forums, I am curious if the authors could offer some basis for claiming such an entitlement? It seems quite contrary to all existing laws, principles of ethics, cultural norms, and standard practices that relate to commentary about published work. Moreover the behavior of many of these very authors suggests they are willing to go to great lengths to avoid being made aware of critiques.
It seems safe interpret the statement as saying that at least these particular authors would like responses to their work to appear on this page. And so, I am fulfilling their request. (Assuming this is allowed to appear, that is. I say that not because I believe there is anything in this comment that would warrant censorship, but to emphasize the blindness of this process. That is, the commentator really has no idea what will be allowed to appear.) I call the authors’ attention to two blog posts I have written critiquing this editorial to ensure they have the requested opportunity to be aware: https://antithrlies.com/2017/02/20/editors-of-tobacco-control-admit-they...https://antithrlies.com/2017/02/22/more-on-tobacco-controls-stop-talking... . In those posts I expand a bit on what appears in this submission. I welcome responses to anything in them, either here, in the blog’s comments sections (I promise their comments will not be censored), or wherever else. However, no familiarity with those posts is necessary to respond to the following questions.
The authors declare “a policy that editors will not respond to external blog posts or social media messages about specific studies.” This statement implies that in the past they have provided such responses. However, I am quite familiar with the scholarly blogs (my own and others’) that often criticize papers that appear in Tobacco Control, and cannot recall a single occasion in which an editor of this journal responded. With the exception of the editorial’s last author occasionally engaging in Twitter conversations about articles — a format which precludes serious debate — I am not aware of any social media engagement. Thus I would like to ask the authors to support their implication by characterizing how often actions that are precluded by this policy actually occurred in the past, and to provide a few examples.
The authors state, “Occasionally, an individual who has written a postpublication critique has declined invitations to review similar papers prepublication.” I am one author of such critiques, and highly qualified to review research papers, but have never once been invited to review for Tobacco Control. I am in close communication with other such individuals, and would be surprised to learn that they have received any such invitation. So I would like to ask for clarification: Is the claim here that on a single occasion, Tobacco Control asked someone to review a paper, but s/he declined, and then wrote a critique after it was published? Or did that happen twice, three times, or more? Or does this merely mean that someone who was once invited to review *some* paper at the journal, and declined, later write a critique of another paper the journal published (thus the use of the word “similar”)?
The authors state: “As noted above, the Rapid Response process provides a forum for exploring such issues. In contrast, placing personal blog posts or social media messages complaining about a study, alleging flaws in the review process, or making ad hominem attacks on authors or editors do not advance the field or allow an appropriate scientific dialogue and debate.” I have several questions about this:
Should we interpret this to mean that the Rapid Response process will censor any attempt to post something that “complains” about a paper or identifies flaws in the review process? Taken on its face, this seems to preclude literally any important criticism. If a commenter observed, say, that a causal inference suffers from enormous residual confounding, which was not acknowledged by the authors, and which renders the conclusions in the paper unsupported, how is that not a “complaint” about the paper? If the identified flaw is apparent to the reader, how is that not also an allegation of a flaw in the review process that allowed the paper to be published with that flaw? Some clarification is needed.
Are the authors of the editorial simply saying they object to *explicit* statements about the failures of the review process, and are saying that these are forbidden from this page? And thus the implicit indictment of the review process from noting there is a major flaw in a paper is acceptable? But would noting a major flaw still constitute a “complaint”? If not, what does?
I am also curious about what ad hominem attacks the authors are referring to. Those of us who criticize tobacco control are quite familiar with the experience ad hominem attacks on our analyses (or, more often, as rationalizations for simply ignoring our analyses). Indeed, such attacks are far more common than substantive criticisms of our work. By contrast, I cannot recall any cases of scholarly blogging critics of a paper in Tobacco Control or other tobacco control papers who have descended to ad hominem attacks. I would like to ask the authors to provide examples to support this allegation. (I will offer the reminder that drawing conclusions about an author or journal based on a paper is, roughly speaking, the opposite of an ad hominem attack. An ad hominem attack would consist of criticizing or dismissing a paper based on the identity or characteristics of the authors or journal.)
Finally, the authors state: “Our role is to facilitate the processes of peer review, transparency and accountability which underpin the legitimacy and independence of academic research.” I am curious about what transparency they are claiming. It appears to me that the journal (in keeping with common practice in this field) sends out papers to reviewers who are chosen based on a non-transparent basis, keeps those reviewers anonymous and the reviews secret, and then makes a decision to publish based on non-transparent criteria. Yes, there are some published statements about what is considered in this process, but they are sufficiently vague that they seem to preclude or guarantee nothing. Am I wrong about this? If not, what transparency is the editorial referring to?
More immediately relevant, there is no apparent transparency in the decision about whether to publish a particular Rapid Response submission. Again, there are guidelines which seem sufficient vague that they would allow an ad hoc decision in either direction about most any submission. It seems rather unreasonable to ask commentators to take the time and effort to submit to a system with vague requirements, particularly given the suggestion that merely “complaining” about a paper is grounds for censorship. Again, clarification is needed if, as the editorial claims, this page is a legitimate forum for serious debate.
I will suggest that a genuinely transparent rule would take a form like the following: Should a reader wish to post a comment on my blog, it will appear, unedited, so long as it is on topic. I suppose I would refuse to post a comment that was utterly outlandish — that, say, ranted about the sexuality of a paper’s author, or alleged criminal behavior — but I have never been forced to make such a decision. I will further note (as I have stated previously) that if authors or editors of a paper that I am criticizing wish to comment, I will allow them to say literally anything they want. I suspect the same transparent rules apply to my fellow scholarly bloggers.
NOT PEER REVIEWED
While I would agree that comments that are directly applied to the article in question are better than blogs scattered across the internet, this policy is entirely dependent on the willingness of editors to publish critical comments that may not be formatted or composed in a style that they are entirely comfortable with. Will editors provide feedback to, for example, citizen activists on why their comments were not published, and how they could change them to make them more acceptable? This seems unlikely, and will only reinforce the perceived inequality of position.
I would also be moved to wonder how editors will deal with rapid responses that link to lengthier works elsewhere? For example, the format of the rapid response does not lend itself well to appending images, which can often be useful to highlight problems.much more effectively than text.
A more likely outcome of this policy is, I fear, an increasing separation into two echo chambers with no overlap, and with far too little exchange of thoughts between the proponents and opponents of vaping, to the detriment of the vast majority who are neither,
NOT PEER REVIEWED This ad watch shows an interesting example of illegal marketing
activity of an e-cigarette company in Korea. However, the description of the trend of
e-cigarette prevalence among Korean adolescents is not correct. According
to the national annual surveys that the author quoted (reference 4),
prevalence of current (30-day) e-cigarette use among Korean adolescents was
4.7% in 2011 and 5.0% in 2014. It decre...
NOT PEER REVIEWED This ad watch shows an interesting example of illegal marketing
activity of an e-cigarette company in Korea. However, the description of the trend of
e-cigarette prevalence among Korean adolescents is not correct. According
to the national annual surveys that the author quoted (reference 4),
prevalence of current (30-day) e-cigarette use among Korean adolescents was
4.7% in 2011 and 5.0% in 2014. It decreased continuously after then, and it
was 4.0% in 2015 and 2.5% in 2016. Even though there have been active
marketing activities by e-cigarette companies, strict regulations on e-
cigarettes enacted by the Korean government (i.e. tax levy, ban on sales to minors,
restriction of use in public places, and restriction of advertisement,
promotion and sponsorship) hindered increase of or even reduced e-
cigarette prevalence among Korean adolescents.
NOT PEER REVIEWED Back when I used to own property with several hundred feet highway
frontage, I was distressed to find and pick up an average of 50 or more
butts along my property every time I walked the perimeter.
I thought about the bottle deposit idea as a solution, but many
simply won't care and the unrefunded deposits end up as an added profit
for the manufacturer.
NOT PEER REVIEWED Back when I used to own property with several hundred feet highway
frontage, I was distressed to find and pick up an average of 50 or more
butts along my property every time I walked the perimeter.
I thought about the bottle deposit idea as a solution, but many
simply won't care and the unrefunded deposits end up as an added profit
for the manufacturer.
Why not mandate a special plastic baggy inserted in every pack for
returning the butts directly back to the manufacturer?
The smoker must return a bag of 25 butts for every pack of 20
cigarettes purchased.
Sized to specifically hold 25 butts with a zip seal end.
The retailer does not have to handle the butts, but at a mere glance can
see that it holds 25 butts when full. The retailer can reject any pack
that is not filled correctly.
The retailer can just toss the collected bags in a container picked
up by the wholesaler.
The wholesaler must collect a butt pack for every pack they sell to
the retailer.
The wholesaler must return a butt pack to the manufacturer for every
pack they buy to distribute.
There is no added profit to leave behind for those uncollected
deposits.
The manufacturer is held directly responsible for disposing of the
butts.
The smoker is forced to go out and collect 5 more butts than they get
in a pack.
This means the smokers clean up their own mess and the manufacturer
is forced to pay for the disposals.
NOT PEER REVIEWED Why is the LGBT at greater health risk?? and why was it necessary to
even add that?? This makes me very upset that we are "targeted" as such!
How is this.. or was this part of the study?
NOT PEER REVIEWED David Bareham cites 'Rip Tripper' as evidence that e-cigarette users
report experiences of allergies being exacerbated in non users by vapour
and describes Mr Tripper's subsequent rather mangled argument that the
devices should not be used in enclosed public spaces as "eloquent".
Perhaps Mr Bareham is unaware that Mr Tripper has also claimed that
vaping causes limb cramps and dry knuckles which...
NOT PEER REVIEWED David Bareham cites 'Rip Tripper' as evidence that e-cigarette users
report experiences of allergies being exacerbated in non users by vapour
and describes Mr Tripper's subsequent rather mangled argument that the
devices should not be used in enclosed public spaces as "eloquent".
Perhaps Mr Bareham is unaware that Mr Tripper has also claimed that
vaping causes limb cramps and dry knuckles which was a surprise to most
vapers, until they spotted the affiliate link to where they could purchase
electrolytes and a lotion to 'cure' them (1).
(1) 'Rip Trippers exposed as a sellout' Jh Reviews
https://youtu.be/F1EJkbM0m7g (contains profanity)
Conflict of Interest:
I am a trustee of NNA(UK) which is a consumer driven charity which aims to improve health by increasing awareness and understanding of reduced risk alternatives to smoked tobacco.
NOT PEER REVIEWED I would like to point out a few disturbing inaccuracies in the methodology and interpretation.
Since the health variable is binary, the authors apply "Wagstaff's correction" to the Concentration Index. This is a perfectly legitimate decision, but the authors mistakenly suggest that this correction can be applied to both the relative and the absolute version of the index, yielding two normalized indices. In fact,...
NOT PEER REVIEWED I would like to point out a few disturbing inaccuracies in the methodology and interpretation.
Since the health variable is binary, the authors apply "Wagstaff's correction" to the Concentration Index. This is a perfectly legitimate decision, but the authors mistakenly suggest that this correction can be applied to both the relative and the absolute version of the index, yielding two normalized indices. In fact, there is only one Wagstaff index, which can be expressed as W = RC/(1-m) = AC/[m(1-m)], with m = prevalence. All the results which are presented under the heading "Absolute concentration index" in Table 2 and as "AC" in Table 3 are therefore irrelevant. These results refer to the index mW which nobody has ever used in the literature. It follows that the decomposition formula (6) of the paper is redundant.
Similar remarks hold for the application of the alternative "Erreygers correction". The correction leads to one index, not two as suggested by the authors. The index can be written as E = 4mRC = 4AC. As a consequence, the results presented under the heading "Absolute concentration index" in Table A.1 of the supplementary online material are irrelevant. They refer to the index mE, which is not the one defined by Erreygers.
After a brief comparison of the Wagstaff and Erreygers indices the authors conclude that "the calculated RC and AC informed qualitatively similar inference" (p. 9). Since E = 4m(1-m)W, the values of E and W clearly will be positively correlated, and the more strongly so if the variation in prevalence is limited. For the whole population, the (unweighted) average of m is 0.28, and the standard deviation 0.19. As expected, the correlation of E and W is high, but not perfect: the coefficient of correlation is 0.8815, and the rank correlation coefficient 0.8726. Nevertheless, countries such as Liberia, Bangladesh and Benin, make large jumps in the rankings if inequality is measured by one index rather than the other. At least for these countries, it may be doubted whether the results are "qualitatively similar".
When it comes to the calculation of the between-group and within-group shares, it makes no difference whether the Wagstaff or Erreygers index is used. The main problem here is that any rank-dependent index is not subgroup decomposable. There is always a residual term, which may be quite large. Because of this, the decomposition results presented in the paper are unreliable.
NOT PEER REVIEWED When it comes to vaping my knowledge is somewhat advanced, in the
hardware aspect I am in the forefront of technology, I test prototypes and
beta models for manufacturers all around the globe, I also have acquired
quite a bit of knowledge when it comes to the creation of flavors.
There's a big difference between something you like and what is
referred to an "All Day Vape" or ADV and the impact t...
NOT PEER REVIEWED When it comes to vaping my knowledge is somewhat advanced, in the
hardware aspect I am in the forefront of technology, I test prototypes and
beta models for manufacturers all around the globe, I also have acquired
quite a bit of knowledge when it comes to the creation of flavors.
There's a big difference between something you like and what is
referred to an "All Day Vape" or ADV and the impact that has on quitting
successfully is quite dramatic.
I have this one flavor I make that I absolutely love, it's Caramel
Apple Crumble with a bit of Creamy Custard, but like many other vapes it's
just too decadent for anyone to vape all day much like chocolate flavors
generally are. Just because you enjoy it doesn't mean you can tolerate it
all day and that can determine your chances at a successful quit attempt.
The flavors used in the study appear to be much generic to yield
results that would reflect the current market as most of it is filled with
much more complex mixes and many variations of each flavor..
There are many variations of flavors that taste like different brands
of cigarettes or candy and fruits, if a smoker were to try a tobacco blend
that tasted like their brand of cigarette their chances at a successful
quit attempt would be much higher than if they tried another variation.
Flavor is by far the most important aspect of a successful quit
attempt when it comes to vaping, once a person finds 1 or 2 flavors they
can enjoy all day they then need to find a device with the vapor
production they are looking for and the appropriate nicotine level to suit
it.
Personally when I first decided to give vaping a shot I tried over
twenty flavors many of which I thought I would enjoy but didn't, I ended
up with two flavors Strawberry Creme and Skittles, SBC all day and Sk
when I felt like something a little more sweet...
The ability to allow people to sample flavors is very much the key to
their success, if I were not allowed and went with what I thought sounded
good I would still be smoking today.
NOT PEER REVIEWED
This is not a particularly well constructed argument. In particular, the paragraph that states:
"If ENDS emissions were really benign, indoor vaping advocates should take courage and call for it to be allowed in classrooms, crèches, hospitals and neonatal wards. That they do not rather suggests that they know well that such a position would be irresponsible."
is possibly the worst excuse for a genuine point of debate it has ever been my misfortune to encounter. it is not even a particularly well constructed straw man.
Many things are considered normal and appropriate for the general population that would not be considered appropriate for a crèche, classroom or neonatal ward.
To use merely the first two examples that sprang to mind (and the list is almost endless):
Incense sticks are widely used, and despite the clear emission of smoke, they are are not banned, or the subject of proposed bans, in most jurisdictions. Many people use them, but I doubt that any would do so in a crèche or neonatal ward. Yet, if we follow the same logic proposed here, this means that they are dangerous, and should be banned almost universally.
Similarly, fog machines are widely used in stage shows, nightclubs and even teenage discos. Despite the extremely strong similarity with vaping, both in chemical composition and particle size, there are not widespread calls for fog machines to be banned (I'm certainly not aware of...
NOT PEER REVIEWED
This is not a particularly well constructed argument. In particular, the paragraph that states:
"If ENDS emissions were really benign, indoor vaping advocates should take courage and call for it to be allowed in classrooms, crèches, hospitals and neonatal wards. That they do not rather suggests that they know well that such a position would be irresponsible."
is possibly the worst excuse for a genuine point of debate it has ever been my misfortune to encounter. it is not even a particularly well constructed straw man.
Many things are considered normal and appropriate for the general population that would not be considered appropriate for a crèche, classroom or neonatal ward.
To use merely the first two examples that sprang to mind (and the list is almost endless):
Incense sticks are widely used, and despite the clear emission of smoke, they are are not banned, or the subject of proposed bans, in most jurisdictions. Many people use them, but I doubt that any would do so in a crèche or neonatal ward. Yet, if we follow the same logic proposed here, this means that they are dangerous, and should be banned almost universally.
Similarly, fog machines are widely used in stage shows, nightclubs and even teenage discos. Despite the extremely strong similarity with vaping, both in chemical composition and particle size, there are not widespread calls for fog machines to be banned (I'm certainly not aware of any such calls by the authors of this article).
Does this mean that they would support the use of fog machines or incense stick in crèches and neonatal wards?
Somehow, I strongly doubt it.
Does this mean that they would support a ban on fog machines in smoke free public places? It doesn't seem particularly likely.
Logic does not easily allow us to conclude that because we feel something is not appropriate for places occupied by the most vulnerable of populations it should be more universally prohibited, nor that something we do not feel should be so prohibited is suitable for such populations.
Nor is it the case that any rational advocate for electronic cigarettes would claim that they are "benign". Every exposure has a risk attached to it. Some, like smoking, are massive risks while others, like a bacon sandwich, are not. Yet, in a debate as facile as this one, both can be stated to be carcinogenic. While this is indeed true in an absolute sense, equating the two would not be responsible risk communication, nor should it be an acceptable message to communicate to the public. It is not sufficient to identify a risk - some indication of the magnitude of it is also required.
So it is with the use of electronic cigarettes. Are they entirely, absolutely, risk free? Of course not. Do they have a good evidence base for positive risk/benefit? Yes.
One of the key benefits of electronic cigarettes is that vaping has been embraced and promoted by former smokers to their peers. No comparable culture exists for NRT products or unassisted quitting. Yet far from being encouraged, or even merely ignored, scorn is poured on these evangelical ex-smokers, notably by one of the authors of this article.
Some perspective is much needed, but this article will not provide it. It is, perhaps, telling that I feel my pre-existing view on harm reduction is an ideological COI, which it certainly is, and have listed it as such. The authors did not feel similarly inclined to declare theirs.
Positions are becoming increasingly entrenched, but a bastion of ideology makes it hard to change position when the evidence indicates a change is justified. There is much common ground between the two sides, yet increasingly it is a shell scarred no-mans land where people are afraid to stick their head above the parapet for fear of being attacked. Bitterness and mistrust is being generated by, and on, both sides of the debate, but who benefits from this hostility? It's not current or former smokers, it is neither Public Health or the health of the public. The only winners are likely to be the equally entrenched and embattled tobacco industry. Nobody wants that.
We need to move beyond facile arguments and veiled hostility to a sensible and rational debate. We all want less people to smoke, and less lives to be lost or marred. Articles like this do not - cannot - help.
NOT PEER REVIEWED
The editors of this journal, Tobacco Control, argue in their blog that debate about published articles should be concentrated on their rapid reaction facility. It is possible that they are making a constructive invitation to their critics to join a debating platform they might otherwise be wary of. However, the blog has been widely read as disparagement of other forms of engagement, notably social media and blogs. It is possible that the editors do not fully appreciate why people use blogs and social media to respond to papers they find problematic, and not Tobacco Control's rapid response feature. Here are several reasons:
1. Trust
Critics may consider, rightly or wrongly, that Tobacco Control has a track record of publishing papers that have dubious scientific merit, overconfident conclusions and policy recommendations that cannot be supported by the paper - almost always reinforcing a particular (abstinence-only) perspective. Critics may be concerned that their work will be treated unfairly or sidelined, or that they will be judged or ridiculed. They may distrust the editors, believe the journal is not impartial, or hold it in low esteem.
2. Conflict of interest and incentives
Not everyone is content to have their reactions edited or approved by the same people whose work they are criticising. Once a journal has published an article that is open to criticism, it develops a conflict of interest between its own r...
Show MoreNOT PEER REVIEWED The authors of this editorial assert that a journal article’s authors are “entitled to be aware of and respond to critiques”, and imply that this is only possible if critiques appear in a forum attached to the journal. Setting aside the fact that authors can easily become aware of and respond to critiques on other forums, I am curious if the authors could offer some basis for claiming such an entitlement? It seems quite contrary to all existing laws, principles of ethics, cultural norms, and standard practices that relate to commentary about published work. Moreover the behavior of many of these very authors suggests they are willing to go to great lengths to avoid being made aware of critiques.
It seems safe interpret the statement as saying that at least these particular authors would like responses to their work to appear on this page. And so, I am fulfilling their request. (Assuming this is allowed to appear, that is. I say that not because I believe there is anything in this comment that would warrant censorship, but to emphasize the blindness of this process. That is, the commentator really has no idea what will be allowed to appear.) I call the authors’ attention to two blog posts I have written critiquing this editorial to ensure they have the requested opportunity to be aware: https://antithrlies.com/2017/02/20/editors-of-t...
Show MoreNOT PEER REVIEWED
While I would agree that comments that are directly applied to the article in question are better than blogs scattered across the internet, this policy is entirely dependent on the willingness of editors to publish critical comments that may not be formatted or composed in a style that they are entirely comfortable with. Will editors provide feedback to, for example, citizen activists on why their comments were not published, and how they could change them to make them more acceptable? This seems unlikely, and will only reinforce the perceived inequality of position.
I would also be moved to wonder how editors will deal with rapid responses that link to lengthier works elsewhere? For example, the format of the rapid response does not lend itself well to appending images, which can often be useful to highlight problems.much more effectively than text.
A more likely outcome of this policy is, I fear, an increasing separation into two echo chambers with no overlap, and with far too little exchange of thoughts between the proponents and opponents of vaping, to the detriment of the vast majority who are neither,
NOT PEER REVIEWED This ad watch shows an interesting example of illegal marketing activity of an e-cigarette company in Korea. However, the description of the trend of e-cigarette prevalence among Korean adolescents is not correct. According to the national annual surveys that the author quoted (reference 4), prevalence of current (30-day) e-cigarette use among Korean adolescents was 4.7% in 2011 and 5.0% in 2014. It decre...
NOT PEER REVIEWED Back when I used to own property with several hundred feet highway frontage, I was distressed to find and pick up an average of 50 or more butts along my property every time I walked the perimeter.
I thought about the bottle deposit idea as a solution, but many simply won't care and the unrefunded deposits end up as an added profit for the manufacturer.
Why not mandate a special plas...
NOT PEER REVIEWED Why is the LGBT at greater health risk?? and why was it necessary to even add that?? This makes me very upset that we are "targeted" as such! How is this.. or was this part of the study?
Conflict of Interest:
None declared
NOT PEER REVIEWED David Bareham cites 'Rip Tripper' as evidence that e-cigarette users report experiences of allergies being exacerbated in non users by vapour and describes Mr Tripper's subsequent rather mangled argument that the devices should not be used in enclosed public spaces as "eloquent".
Perhaps Mr Bareham is unaware that Mr Tripper has also claimed that vaping causes limb cramps and dry knuckles which...
NOT PEER REVIEWED When it comes to vaping my knowledge is somewhat advanced, in the hardware aspect I am in the forefront of technology, I test prototypes and beta models for manufacturers all around the globe, I also have acquired quite a bit of knowledge when it comes to the creation of flavors.
There's a big difference between something you like and what is referred to an "All Day Vape" or ADV and the impact t...
NOT PEER REVIEWED
This is not a particularly well constructed argument. In particular, the paragraph that states:
"If ENDS emissions were really benign, indoor vaping advocates should take courage and call for it to be allowed in classrooms, crèches, hospitals and neonatal wards. That they do not rather suggests that they know well that such a position would be irresponsible."
is possibly the worst excuse for a genuine point of debate it has ever been my misfortune to encounter. it is not even a particularly well constructed straw man.
Many things are considered normal and appropriate for the general population that would not be considered appropriate for a crèche, classroom or neonatal ward.
To use merely the first two examples that sprang to mind (and the list is almost endless):
Show MoreIncense sticks are widely used, and despite the clear emission of smoke, they are are not banned, or the subject of proposed bans, in most jurisdictions. Many people use them, but I doubt that any would do so in a crèche or neonatal ward. Yet, if we follow the same logic proposed here, this means that they are dangerous, and should be banned almost universally.
Similarly, fog machines are widely used in stage shows, nightclubs and even teenage discos. Despite the extremely strong similarity with vaping, both in chemical composition and particle size, there are not widespread calls for fog machines to be banned (I'm certainly not aware of...
Pages