A critical evaluation of the volume, relevance and quality of evidence submitted by the tobacco industry to oppose standardised packaging of tobacco products

OBJECTIVES: To examine the volume, relevance and quality of transnational tobacco corporations' (TTCs) evidence that standardised packaging of tobacco products 'won't work', following the UK government's decision to 'wait and see' until further evidence is available. DESIGN: Content analysis. SETTING: We analysed the evidence cited in submissions by the UK's four largest TTCs to the UK Department of Health consultation on standardised packaging in 2012. OUTCOME MEASURES: The volume, relevance (subject matter) and quality (as measured by independence from industry and peer-review) of evidence cited by TTCs was compared with evidence from a systematic review of standardised packaging . Fisher's exact test was used to assess differences in the quality of TTC and systematic review evidence. 100% of the data were second-coded to validate the findings: 94.7% intercoder reliability; all differences were resolved. RESULTS: 77/143 pieces of TTC-cited evidence were used to promote their claim that standardised packaging 'won't work'. Of these, just 17/77 addressed standardised packaging: 14 were industry connected and none were published in peer-reviewed journals. Comparison of TTC and systematic review evidence on standardised packaging showed that the industry evidence was of significantly lower quality in terms of tobacco industry connections and peer-review (p<0.0001). The most relevant TTC evidence (on standardised packaging or packaging generally, n=26) was of significantly lower quality (p<0.0001) than the least relevant (on other topics, n=51). Across the dataset, TTC-connected evidence was significantly less likely to be published in a peer-reviewed journal (p=0.0045). CONCLUSIONS: With few exceptions, evidence cited by TTCs to promote their claim that standardised packaging 'won't work' lacks either policy relevance or key indicators of quality. Policymakers could use these three criteria-subject matter, independence and peer-review status-to critically assess evidence submitted to them by corporate interests via Better Regulation processes.

Free to publish - free to read

Full Text: August 2001 saw the birth of the British Journal of Diabetes & Vascular Disease (Figure 1): an open-access peer review journal.1 Free to publish and free to read. The founding editorial board and publisher (MediNews Diabetes) aimed to deliver a free journal to the diabetes team and vascular professionals with a special interest in diabetes. Despite the shifting sands of time and a change of publisher (SAGE) the journal has remained true to its founding philosophy - publication is on merit, not on ability to pay and free online access remains available worldwide (www.bjdvd.com) plus an extensive – mainly UK - print circulation. Evolution- The journal attracted much attention and was soon receiving good quality experimental and clinical science manuscripts. However it was felt that these articles, especially experimental and pre-clinical studies, were not within the focus of the British Journal of Diabetes & Vascular Disease, thus Diabetes & Vascular Disease Research was conceived –and is now also a SAGE journal and has an impact factor of 2.59. Over the years the organisation of topics has changed, for example the Healthcare management, The diabetes care team and Trans-cultural medicine sections have been absorbed into the Achieving Best Practice and Current Topics sections which better reflect the broader-based content of submitted material. Landmark Studies was a regular highly popular section – but how many truly Landmark Studies are undertaken? Not enough to warrant special attention 6 times a year for 12 years. Interestingly one of the studies reviewed is consistently amongst the top ten of our most read online articles.2 The British Journal of Diabetes & Vascular Disease has also challenged convention with the production of two Jubilee issues.3,4 The celebrations for the golden and diamond jubilees of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II afforded opportunities to reflect on changes in the understanding and treatment of diabetes during her reign. Most of the articles in these issues were written by authors who had first hand experience of the changing face of diabetes and vascular disease care. The increased costs of print and post – both financially and environmentally mean that digital communications are likely to become more popular (assuming that these approaches have a smaller ecological footprint). The British Journal of Diabetes & Vascular Disease is pleased to be able to celebrate its 12th birthday as an original open-access journal, with an ongoing commitment to support authors to publish free of charge whilst providing free reader access. As for what the future holds: tomorrow is another day. References 1.British Journal of Diabetes & Vascular Disease 2001; 1: 1-92. 2.Levy J. Impotence and its medical and psychosocial correlates: results of the Massachusetts Male Aging Study. Br J Diabetes Vasc Dis 2002; 2: 278-80. 3.British Journal of Diabetes & Vascular Disease. (Golden Jubilee Issue) 2002; 2: 415-480. 4.British Journal of Diabetes & Vascular Disease. (Diamond Jubilee Issue) 2012; 12: 266-380.

The science of writing an article – or is it art?

Getting your work published is an important aim for anyone undertaking research. This paper described how to prepare your work for peer review. Some recommendations are detailed i.e ensure yourself that your work is of good quality, decide is which journal you want to submit it to, follow the required style and be structured. Finally, a few tips and the reviewer's checklist are reminded.

Misrepresentations and flawed logic about the prevalence of false memories

Brewin and Andrews (2016) propose that just 15% of people, or even fewer, are susceptible to false childhood memories. If this figure were true, then false memories would still be a serious problem. But the figure is higher than 15%. False memories occur even after a few short and low-pressure interviews, and with each successive interview they become richer, more compelling, and more likely to occur. It is therefore dangerously misleading to claim that the scientific data provide an “upper bound” on susceptibility to memory errors. We also raise concerns about the peer review process.

Examining argumentative coherence in essays by undergraduate students of English as a foreign language in Mainland China and their English speaking peers in the United States

I conducted this study to provide insights toward deepening understanding of association between culture and writing by building, assessing, and refining a conceptual model of second language writing. To do this, I examined culture and coherence as well as the relationship between them through a mixed methods research design. Coherence has been an important and complex concept in ESL/EFL writing. I intended to study the concept of coherence in the research context of contrastive rhetoric, comparing the coherence quality in argumentative essays written by undergraduates in Mainland China and their U.S. peers. In order to analyze the complex concept of coherence, I synthesized five linguistic theories of coherence: Halliday and Hasan's cohesion theory, Carroll's theory of coherence, Enkvist's theory of coherence, Topical Structure Analysis, and Toulmin's Model. Based upon the synthesis, 16 variables were generated. Across these 16 variables, Hotelling t-test statistical analysis was conducted to predict differences in argumentative coherence between essays written by two groups of participants. In order to complement the statistical analysis, I conducted 30 interviews of the writers in the studies. Participants' responses were analyzed with open and axial coding. By analyzing the empirical data, I refined the conceptual model by adding more categories and establishing associations among them. The study found that U.S. students made use of more pronominal reference. Chinese students adopted more lexical devices of reiteration and extended paralleling progression. The interview data implied that the difference may be associated with the difference in linguistic features and rhetorical conventions in Chinese and English. As far as Toulmin's Model is concerned, Chinese students scored higher on data than their U.S. peers. According to the interview data, this may be due to the fact that Toulmin's Model, modified as three elements of arguments, have been widely and long taught in Chinese writing instruction while U.S. interview participants said that they were not taught to write essays according to Toulmin's Model. Implications were generated from the process of textual data analysis and the formulation of structural model defining coherence. These implications were aimed at informing writing instruction, assessment, peer-review, and self-revision.

Judging psychology experts: Can judges and attorneys distinguish between clinical and experimental psychologists?

A trial judge serves as gatekeeper in the courtroom to ensure that only reliable expert witness testimony is presented to the jury. Nevertheless, research shows that while judges take seriously their gatekeeper status, legal professionals in general are unable to identify well conducted research and are unable to define falsifiability, error rates, peer review status, and scientific validity (Gatkowski et al., 2001; Kovera & McAuliff, 2000). However, the abilities to identify quality scientific research and define scientific concepts are critical to preventing "junk" science from entering courtrooms. Research thus far has neglected to address that before selecting expert witnesses, judges and attorneys must first evaluate experts' CVs rather than their scientific testimony to determine whether legal standards of admissibility have been met. The quality of expert testimony, therefore, largely depends on the ability to evaluate properly experts' credentials. Theoretical models of decision making suggest that ability/knowledge and motivation are required to process information systematically. Legal professionals (judges and attorneys) were expected to process CVs heuristically when rendering expert witness decisions due to a lack of training in areas of psychology expertise.^ Legal professionals' (N = 150) and undergraduate students' (N = 468) expert witness decisions were examined and compared. Participants were presented with one of two versions of a criminal case calling for the testimony of either a clinical psychology expert or an experimental legal psychology expert. Participants then read one of eight curricula vitae that varied area of expertise (clinical vs. legal psychology), previous expert witness experience (previous experience vs. no previous experience), and scholarly publication record (30 publications vs. no publications) before deciding whether the expert was qualified to testify in the case. Follow-up measures assessed participants' decision making processes.^ Legal professionals were not better than college students at rendering quality psychology expert witness admissibility decisions yet they were significantly more confident in their decisions. Legal professionals rated themselves significantly higher than students in ability, knowledge, and motivation to choose an appropriate psychology expert although their expert witness decisions were equally inadequate. Findings suggest that participants relied on heuristics, such as previous expert witness experience, to render decisions.^

Low frequency of cigarette smoking and the risk of head and neck cancer in the INHANCE consortium pooled analysis

Funding • The pooled data coordination team (PBoffetta, MH, YCAL) were supported by National Cancer Institute grant R03CA113157 and by National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research grant R03DE016611 • The Milan study (CLV) was supported by the Italian Association for Research on Cancer (Grant no. 10068). • The Aviano study (LDM) was supported by a grant from the Italian Association for Research on Cancer (AIRC), Italian League Against Cancer and Italian Ministry of Research • The Italy Multicenter study (DS) was supported by the Italian Association for Research on Cancer (AIRC), Italian League Against Cancer and Italian Ministry of Research. • The Study from Switzerland (FL) was supported by the Swiss League against Cancer and the Swiss Research against Cancer/Oncosuisse [KFS-700, OCS-1633]. • The central Europe study (PBoffetta, PBrenan, EF, JL, DM, PR, OS, NS-D) was supported by the World Cancer Research Fund and the European Commission INCOCOPERNICUS Program [Contract No. IC15- CT98-0332] • The New York multicentre study (JM) was supported by a grant from National Institute of Health [P01CA068384 K07CA104231]. • The study from the Fred Hutchison Cancer Research Center from Seattle (CC, SMS) was supported by a National Institute of Health grant [R01CA048996, R01DE012609]. • The Iowa study (ES) was supported by National Instituteof Health [NIDCR R01DE011979, NIDCR R01DE013110, FIRCA TW001500] and Veterans Affairs Merit Review Funds. • The North Carolina studies (AFO) were supported by National Institute of Health [R01CA061188], and in part by a grant from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences [P30ES010126]. • The Tampa study (PLazarus, JM) was supported by National Institute of Health grants [P01CA068384, K07CA104231, R01DE013158] • The Los Angeles study (Z-F Z, HM) was supported by grants from National Institute of Health [P50CA090388, R01DA011386, R03CA077954, T32CA009142, U01CA096134, R21ES011667] and the Alper Research Program for Environmental Genomics of the UCLA Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center. • The Houston study (EMS, GL) was supported by a grant from National Institute of Health [R01ES011740, R01CA100264]. • The Puerto Rico study (RBH, MPP) was supported by a grant from National Institutes of Health (NCI) US and NIDCR intramural programs. • The Latin America study (PBoffetta, PBrenan, MV, LF, MPC, AM, AWD, SK, VW-F) was supported by Fondo para la Investigacion Cientifica y Tecnologica (FONCYT) Argentina, IMIM (Barcelona), Fundaco de Amparo a‘ Pesquisa no Estado de Sao Paulo (FAPESP) [No 01/01768-2], and European Commission [IC18-CT97-0222] • The IARC multicentre study (SF, RH, XC) was supported by Fondo de Investigaciones Sanitarias (FIS) of the Spanish Government [FIS 97/ 0024, FIS 97/0662, BAE 01/5013], International Union Against Cancer (UICC), and Yamagiwa-Yoshida Memorial International Cancer Study Grant. • The Boston study (KKelsey, MMcC) was supported by a grant from National Institute of Health [R01CA078609, R01CA100679]. • The Rome study (SB, GC) was supported by AIRC (Italian Agency for Research on Cancer). • The US multicentre study (BW) was supported by The Intramural Program of the National Cancer Institute, National Institute of Health, United States. • The Sao Paolo study (V W-F) was supported by Fundacao de Ampara a Pesquisa no Estado de Sao Paulo (FAPESP No 10/51168-0) • The MSKCC study (SS, G-P Y) was supported by a grant from National Institute of Health [R01CA051845]. • The Seattle-Leo stud (FV) was supported by a grant from National Institute of Health [R01CA030022] • The western Europe Study (PBoffetta, IH, WA, PLagiou, DS, LS, FM, CH, KKjaerheim, DC, TMc, PT, AA, AZ) was supported by European Community (5th Frame work Programme) grant no QLK1-CT-2001- 00182. • The Germany Heidelberg study (HR) was supported by the grant No. 01GB9702/3 from the German Ministry of Education and Research.

Fault-controlled and stratabound dolostones in the Late Aptian-earliest Albian Benassal Formation (Maestrat Basin, E Spain) : petrology and geochemistry constrains

This study was developed under the ExxonMobil FC2 Alliance (Fundamental Controls on Flow in Carbonates). The authors wish to thank ExxonMobil Production Company and ExxonMobil Upstream Research Company for providing funding. The views in this article by Sherry L. Stafford are her own and not necessarily those of ExxonMobil. This research was supported by the Sedimentary Geology Research Group of the Generalitat de Catalunya (2014SGR251). We would like to thank Andrea Ceriani and Paola Ronchi for their critical and valuable reviews, and Associated Editor Piero Gianolla for the editorial work.

Carbonate deposition in the Palaeoproterozoic Onega basin from Fennoscandia : a spotlight on the transition from the Lomagundi-Jatuli to Shunga events

Date of Acceptance: 08/05/2015 Date of online publication: 16/05/2015 Elemental and isotopic data, thin and polished sections used in this contribution were obtained through two large umbrella-projects with grants provided by the Norwegian Research Council grant 191530/V30 to VAM and NERC grant NE/G00398X/1 to AEF. We thank A. Črne, the editor A. Strasser as well as one anonymous reviewer and D. Papineau for providing their valuable criticism and suggestions.

BDI reasoning with normative considerations

F. Meneguzzi thanks Fundaç ao de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Rio Grande do Sul (FAPERGS, Brazil) for the financial support through the ACI program (Grant ref. 3541-2551/12-0) and the ARD program (Grant ref. 12/0808-5), as well as Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq) through the Universal Call (Grant ref. 482156/2013-9) and PQ fellowship (Grant ref. 306864/2013-4). N. Oren and W.W. Vasconcelos acknowledge the support of the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC, UK) within the research project “Scrutable Autonomous Systems” (SAsSY11, Grant ref. EP/J012084/1).

Baseflow dynamics : multi-tracer surveys to assess variable groundwater contributions to montane streams under low flows

Peer reviewed

Identifying and exploring factors influencing career choice, recruitment and retention of anaesthesia trainees in the UK

Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/

Restarting antidepressant treatment following early discontinuation : a primary care database study

Peer reviewed

Religious differences in electoral turnout among women in Northern Ireland

Peer reviewed

Preferred semantics as Socratic discussion

Funding For M.C., the major part of the work on this article was carried out while he was affiliated with the Interdisciplinary Centre for Security, Reliability and Trust at the University of Luxembourg. His research was supported by the National Research Fund, Luxembourg (LAAMI project), as well as by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC, UK), grant ref. EP/J012084/1 (SAsSY project). For S.V., the major part of the work on this article was carried out while he was affiliated with the Computer Science and Communication Research Unit at the University of Luxembourg. He worked on this article during the tenure of an ERCIM Alain Bensoussan Fellowship Programme, which is supported by the Marie Curie Co-funding of Regional, National and International Programmes (COFUND) of the European Commission. During this time, he was also funded by the National Research Fund, Luxembourg. When finishing the work on this article, he was a CRNS researcher affiliated with CRIL