Passive smoking: Peer review and press release

doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7413.503

BMJ 2003;327:503 (30 August), doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7413.503

Letter

Passive smoking

Peer review and press release

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.

Editor—The questions raised about the validity of thedata reported by Enstrom and Kabat call into question the adequacyof the peer and editorial review of the paper at the BMJ.¹ Apparently no one with special expertise in research on thehealth effects of passive smoking was involved in the reviewof this paper. In an area as complex as this—to whichmassive reports have been devoted^{2
3}—one or more personswith epidemiological expertise and an extensive knowledge ofthe literature on this subject should have been involved inthe review of this paper. The obligation to find such a revieweris heightened when one considers the authors' conflicts ofinterest and the fact that the paper challenges a huge bodyof evidence in an area of enormous public health importance.

The BMJ's press release for this paper looks as if it was written by the tobacco industry. . . . [Full text of this article]

Ronald M Davis, director

Center for Health Promotion and Disease Prevention, Henry Ford Health System, One Ford Place, 5C, Detroit, MI 48202-3450, USA rdavis1@hfhs.org

CiteULike

Complore

Connotea

Del.icio.us Add to Digg

Digg

StumbleUpon Add to Technorati

Technorati What's this?

Relevant Article

Environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality in a prospective study of Californians, 1960-98: James E Enstrom and Geoffrey C Kabat
BMJ 2003 326: 1057. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]