Letter
Passive smoking
Peer review and press release
Cite this as:
BMJ
2003;327:503.1
- Competing interests (ethics)
- Ethics
- Health education
- Health promotion
- Journalology
- Public health
- Smoking
- Smoking and tobacco
More topics 
Fewer topics
- Ronald M Davis, director (rdavis1@hfhs.org)
- Center for Health Promotion and Disease Prevention, Henry Ford Health System, One Ford Place, 5C, Detroit, MI 48202-3450, USA
Editor–The questions raised about the validity of the data reported by Enstrom and Kabat call into question the adequacy of the peer and editorial review of the paper at the BMJ.1 Apparently no one with special expertise in research on the health effects of passive smoking was involved in the review of this paper. In an area as complex as this–to which massive reports have been …
Sign in
Article access
Article access for 1 day
Purchase this article for £20 $30 €32*
The PDF version can be downloaded as your personal record
CiteULike
Connotea
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mendeley
Reddit
Technorati
Twitter
Stumbleupon
Rapid responses
Latest Responses
The word parameter is almost always wrong.
Published 25 May 2012
Re: Television shows and education about sexually transmitted infections: no laughing matter
Published 25 May 2012
Re: David Morrell
Published 25 May 2012
Re: Time to end the distinction between mental and neurological illnesses
Published 25 May 2012
Re: Are we nearly there with tranexamic acid?
Published 25 May 2012
Most responses
Venous thrombosis in users of non-oral hormonal contraception: follow-up study, Denmark 2001-10 (12 responses)
Published 10 May 2012 - 23:32
The psychiatric oligarchs who medicalise normality (8 responses)
Published 2 May 2012
Are doctors justified in taking industrial action in defence of their pensions? No (8 responses)
Published 8 May 2012 - 12:21
Are doctors justified in taking industrial action in defence of their pensions? Yes (8 responses)
Published 8 May 2012 - 12:21
The hardest thing: admitting error (7 responses)
Published 2 May 2012 - 12:27