CONFERENCE PROCEEDING
How research institutions are protecting themselves from the tobacco industry's fake science
,
 
,
 
,
 
 
 
More details
Hide details
1
Knowledge Management, Global Center for Good Governance in Tobacco Control, New Delhi, India
 
2
Global Public Policy and Strategy, Global Center for Good Governance in Tobacco Control, Manila, Philippines
 
3
Knowledge Management, Global Center for Good Governance in Tobacco Control, Manila, Philippines
 
 
Publication date: 2025-06-23
 
 
Tob. Induc. Dis. 2025;23(Suppl 1):A75
 
KEYWORDS
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The tobacco industry (TI) has a well-documented history of undermining scientific integrity by funding research supporting its interests, often published in reputable journals, and has recently been targeting medical education sector to promote accredited medical courses on cessation, e.g. Medscape. This study investigates how scientific or medical journals and institutions implement conflict-of-interest (COI) policies to prohibit TI funding or publications and evaluates how these measures counteract scientific misconduct by the TI.
METHODS: A systematic review of publicly available COI policies from academic journals and research institutions was conducted. An extensive Google search used keywords such as “conflict of interest”. Official websites of reputed journals and universities were reviewed to identify specific COI policies. Case studies were used to illustrate the COI policies/the lack thereof, and how institutions are implementing the same/responding to the TI approaches in the absence of specific policies.
RESULTS: The analysis identified 44 journals and universities with relevant COI policies. Some explicitly prohibit TI-funded publications, while others mandate disclosure of both direct and indirect TI funding. Of the 23 universities identified, 18 strictly prohibit TI funding, while others permit exceptions for other disciplines. Additionally, some funding agencies for health programs have implemented policies to prevent their grants from being associated with TI interests. Some institutions have effectively rejected TI funding on an ad hoc basis.
CONCLUSIONS: The findings highlight efforts by journals, universities, and funding organizations to mitigate the TI influence on research. While many institutions have effective COI policies, inconsistencies and exceptions in their application underscore the need for universal standards. Building on the study and database produced in this research, tools could be developed to improve and harmonize COI policies across scientific and related institutions.
eISSN:1617-9625
Journals System - logo
Scroll to top