(Putting this as a separate comment because my first was already long.) I also appreciate your work in bridging the scientists with the consumers and calling for better scientific literacy.
I also think consumers should continue to tell their personal stories. We humans are usually illogical and that's why producing science can feel like a hopeless task. But emotional stories have a better chance at changing minds. I hope having both the personal stories and the evidence to back it up will have a synergistic effect eventually.
Thank you, Al, for appreciating the work that us scientists do. Roberto's 2-year publication shows how slow the publishing process can be, especially when arguing against the mainstream narrative.
I've experienced similar publication delays and it's so routine that I didn't even think to complain about it. In my case, since some of my work is funded by Juul, that adds additional barriers. But even if my work is not directly funded, and I do it in my own unpaid overtime, journals still look on me with suspicion. The most recent of many examples is a paper analyzing a public-use dataset (so if anyone is suspicious about our analyses, they are free to do their own and point out where they think we're wrong) and it has rejected from 7 journals so far. Usually without even sending it out for review, but in one case, it *did* go out for review: one peer reviewer was positive, but the other responded to the editor only anonymously (didn't provide comments directly to us authors) to say that we are biased because of our funding, without providing any comments on the actual content. We try to publish in journals indexed in PubMed (so that others can see our work) but for this one, we had to throw in the towel and go to a less visible journal.
You’re working with public data that anyone can access. You’re being upfront about your funding. You submit your paper anyway. You get rejected. You try again. That isn’t just stubbornness, it’s doing science the right way. It helps make sure the research record doesn’t become one-sided just because certain voices are easier to publish than others.
There’s also something telling about what happened with that reviewer. If someone truly believes your work is biased, they should be able to explain why in writing and point to specific problems in the analysis. Raising concerns privately to the editor, without giving you actual comments to respond to, suggests they may not want to defend that criticism openly. Real transparency means arguments are made in the open, not behind closed doors.
So thank you for not just shrugging and accepting this as “normal,” even if it has started to feel routine.
Publishing in a less visible journal might limit how many people see your paper right away. But the quality of your work isn’t determined by a journal’s prestige. Strong research has a way of resurfacing and gaining attention over time, especially when the conversation shifts.
So keep going. Keep being transparent. Keep documenting what happens. And keep calmly insisting that if someone disagrees with you, they point to the data and explain why instead of questioning who you are or where your funding comes from.
This is where consumers can help. By sharing these studies across all the social media platforms they are on, writing about these studies in op-eds or on their blogs, and using these studies as references when they submit testimony opposing regulations that will harm people who smoke.
I'm so sorry you have experienced that. It is not fair. More importantly, it is not right. Meanwhile, another 1300 of our fellow Americans will die from smoking today. It makes me wonder if the journals give a damn about that anymore.
It’s pretty simple really. If young researcher working on smoking/vaping with partner, couple of kids etc wants to pay off mortgage & other debts, DON’T do research which might show vaping much less risky than smoking, vaping helps loads of smokers quit, sky high cigarette excise inflames booming black market. Instead follow tobacco control part line: nicotine from Big Pharma safe and not addictive but nicotine from tobacco companies even in smoke-free products is dangerous & highly addictive; vaping is a gateway to smoking despite smoking rates falling like a stone after vaping rates increase. Research which will give you great income, invitations to prestigious committees & top conferences is subjecting mice & rats to vaping conditions no human would ever tolerate and measuring harm. BINGO!
(Putting this as a separate comment because my first was already long.) I also appreciate your work in bridging the scientists with the consumers and calling for better scientific literacy.
I also think consumers should continue to tell their personal stories. We humans are usually illogical and that's why producing science can feel like a hopeless task. But emotional stories have a better chance at changing minds. I hope having both the personal stories and the evidence to back it up will have a synergistic effect eventually.
Thank you, Al, for appreciating the work that us scientists do. Roberto's 2-year publication shows how slow the publishing process can be, especially when arguing against the mainstream narrative.
I've experienced similar publication delays and it's so routine that I didn't even think to complain about it. In my case, since some of my work is funded by Juul, that adds additional barriers. But even if my work is not directly funded, and I do it in my own unpaid overtime, journals still look on me with suspicion. The most recent of many examples is a paper analyzing a public-use dataset (so if anyone is suspicious about our analyses, they are free to do their own and point out where they think we're wrong) and it has rejected from 7 journals so far. Usually without even sending it out for review, but in one case, it *did* go out for review: one peer reviewer was positive, but the other responded to the editor only anonymously (didn't provide comments directly to us authors) to say that we are biased because of our funding, without providing any comments on the actual content. We try to publish in journals indexed in PubMed (so that others can see our work) but for this one, we had to throw in the towel and go to a less visible journal.
You’re working with public data that anyone can access. You’re being upfront about your funding. You submit your paper anyway. You get rejected. You try again. That isn’t just stubbornness, it’s doing science the right way. It helps make sure the research record doesn’t become one-sided just because certain voices are easier to publish than others.
There’s also something telling about what happened with that reviewer. If someone truly believes your work is biased, they should be able to explain why in writing and point to specific problems in the analysis. Raising concerns privately to the editor, without giving you actual comments to respond to, suggests they may not want to defend that criticism openly. Real transparency means arguments are made in the open, not behind closed doors.
So thank you for not just shrugging and accepting this as “normal,” even if it has started to feel routine.
Publishing in a less visible journal might limit how many people see your paper right away. But the quality of your work isn’t determined by a journal’s prestige. Strong research has a way of resurfacing and gaining attention over time, especially when the conversation shifts.
So keep going. Keep being transparent. Keep documenting what happens. And keep calmly insisting that if someone disagrees with you, they point to the data and explain why instead of questioning who you are or where your funding comes from.
This is where consumers can help. By sharing these studies across all the social media platforms they are on, writing about these studies in op-eds or on their blogs, and using these studies as references when they submit testimony opposing regulations that will harm people who smoke.
I'm so sorry you have experienced that. It is not fair. More importantly, it is not right. Meanwhile, another 1300 of our fellow Americans will die from smoking today. It makes me wonder if the journals give a damn about that anymore.
Trying to do my bit. My bit is supporting behind the front line, all I can do now
Clouds people
You do an awesome job Tom and thank you!
It’s pretty simple really. If young researcher working on smoking/vaping with partner, couple of kids etc wants to pay off mortgage & other debts, DON’T do research which might show vaping much less risky than smoking, vaping helps loads of smokers quit, sky high cigarette excise inflames booming black market. Instead follow tobacco control part line: nicotine from Big Pharma safe and not addictive but nicotine from tobacco companies even in smoke-free products is dangerous & highly addictive; vaping is a gateway to smoking despite smoking rates falling like a stone after vaping rates increase. Research which will give you great income, invitations to prestigious committees & top conferences is subjecting mice & rats to vaping conditions no human would ever tolerate and measuring harm. BINGO!
Exactly so.