Are you interested in reading more about race in America and engaging with others in our community with similar interests? The GW SMHS Office of Diversity and Inclusion, the Anti-Racism Coalition (ARC), and the Center for Faculty Excellence are continuing their Anti-Racism Book Club this spring. The book selection for Spring 2022 is Why Are All The Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria? By Beverly Daniel Tatum.
This book explores how the experience of African Americans is still very different from that of whites, and provides a framework for understanding how the dynamics of dominant groups and non-dominant groups manifest themselves around the issue of race. An electronic copy of this book is accessible for free through Himmelfarb Library.
The first of this three session discussion will take place on Tuesday, February 22nd at 12:00pm and Wednesday, February 23rd at 5:00pm (eastern standard time). Sessions are offered at Noon and 5pm for every session in order to accommodate a variety of schedules. Register for the sessions that fit within your schedule. All sessions will be held virtually via Zoom. For more information about these events, contact Jalina Booker at JTBooker@gwu.edu.
If you are interested in additional book recommendations to celebrate Black History Month, we have a recent blog post with some suggestions!
In an effort to remain accountable to communities who have been negatively impacted by past and present medical injustices, the staff at Himmelfarb Library is committed to the work of maintaining an anti-discriminatory practice. We will uplift and highlight diverse stories throughout the year, and not shy away from difficult conversations necessary for health sciences education. To help fulfill this mission, today's blog post honors International Holocaust Remembrance Day.
January 27th is International Holocaust Remembrance Day. This day is meant to serve as a time to honor and commemorate the victims of the Nazi regime, and to promote education about the Holocaust. On January 27, 1945, Auschwitz was liberated by the Soviet army. Auschwitz, located in German-occupied Poland, was the largest of the the Nazi concentration camps and the place where 1.1 million people lost their lives during the Holocaust (USHMM, n.d.).
Medical Experiments in the Holocaust
Medicine played a role in the dark history of Auschwitz. SS physicians conducted a variety of medical experiments on prisoners at Auschwitz. These experiments were conducted without the consent of the prisoners and were often painful, and even deadly. The results from these experiments are overwhelmingly rejected today due to “inhumane conditions, lack of consent, and questionable research standards” (USHMM, n.d.). Nazi experiments focused on three main areas of interest: survival of military personnel, drug and treatment testing, and advancement of Nazi racial ideological goals.
Experiments aimed to improve the survival of military personnel included “high-altitude experiments to determine the maximum altitude from which crews of damaged aircraft could parachute safely,” “freezing experiments'' to develop hypothermia treatments, and testing ways of “making seawater drinkable” (USHMM, n,d). Drug and treatment experiments used prisoners to test immunization and antibodies intended to prevent and treat contagious diseases “including malaria, typhus, tuberculosis, typhoid fever, yellow fever and infectious hepatitis” (USHMM, n.d.). Bone grafting experiments left prisoners disfigured. Prisoners were exposed to phosgene and mustard gas so antidotes could be tested. Experiments aimed at advancing Nazi racial and ideological goals were intented to establish “Jewish racial inferiority” (USHMM, n.d.). These experiments were often deadly for prisoners. Even when a prisoner survived the experiment, they were often put to death afterwards “in order to facilitate post-mortem examination” (USHMM, n.d.).
Josef Mengele: The Angel of Death
The most well known Nazi doctor, who conducted many of these horrendous experiements at Auschwitz, was Josef Mengele. After joining the Nazi Party in 1937, Mangele received his medical degree and joined the SS a year later, in 1938. Mengele arrived at Auschwitz in May of 1943, and in November of that same year became the Chief Camp Physician of Auschwitz II (Birkenau) (USHMM, n.d.).
Auschwitz medical staff were required to be present when new prisoners arrived to the camp as part of their “rounds,” during which time they made “selections” of prisoners to determine who would be put to work doing hard labor, and who would be sent directly to the gas chambers (USHMM, n.d.). Because he often spent his “off-duty” time at the ramp on the lookout for twins, his research area of interest, Mengele is a “pervasive image” among survivor accounts of the ramp (USHMM, n.d.). He is known as the “Angel of Death” due to “his coldly cruel demeanor” while on selection duty on the ramp (USHMM, n.d.).
In the following video, Eva Kor, a twin who experienced the horrors of Nazi experimentation first hand, recounts her experience with Mengele:
Jewish medical professionals who were prisoners at Auschwitz were forced to carry out the details of many of the experiments that happened there. Dr. Miklos Nyiszli, a prisoner-physician who “assisted Mengele under duress,” later documented his experience in his book Auschwitz: A Doctor’s Eyewitness Account.
While Mengele’s crimes were well documented, he evaded punishment for these crimes by moving from Argentina to Paraguay to Brazil, where he died in 1979. To learn more about Mengele, read Halioua and Marmor’s 2020 article The eyes of the angel of death: Ophthalmic experiments of Josef Mengele.
Jewish Physicians and the Holocaust:
While the actions of Nazi doctors during the Holocaust were overwhelmingly horrifying and atrocious, there were doctors during this time who made the choice to practice medicine in a way that offered hope and was intended to save lives whenever possible. In the 2014 book Jewish Medical Resistance in the Holocaust, Dr. Michael Grodin highlights the “mostly unknown moral and physical struggles faced by physicians trying to provide care and comfort amid the depredation of war” (Saunders, 2014). As documented by primary and secondary source materials in this book, Jewish physicians “fought to promote public health in ghettos and concentration camps as a way of slowing the march toward extermination” (Saunders, 2014). To hear more about this book and Jewish doctors during the Holocaust, take a look at the short video below:
Perl as a young medical student (Gross 2020)
One Jewish physician who was a prisoner at Auschwitz and was forced to work with Dr. Mengele was Dr. Gisella Perl, pictured on the left as a young medical student. Dr. Perl was a gynecologist who lived in Hungary with her husband, Ephraim Krauss, a surgeon, and their two children. In March of 1944, Perl and her family were sent to Sighet Ghetto. By March of 1945, she had been moved to Auschwitz. Perl, alongside four other doctors and five nurses, were tasked with establishing a hospital in the camp.
In addition to gynecology, Perl found herself “trying to heal all of the forms of abuse inflicted on her fellow prisoners” including caring for head wounds, extracting infected teeth, taping broken ribs, and cleaning painful lacerations (Gross, 2020). Having had her medical bag ripped away by a German doctor, she had no equipment with which to perform these duties aside from “paper for bandaging and a small knife she sharpened on a stone” (Gross, 2020).
Even in the midst of such dire circumstances, Perl made every effort to use her position as a doctor in the camp for good and to save as many lives as she could. When asked to provide blood samples for prisoners who she knew had contagious diseases, she sent vials of her own blood instead so the patients would not be killed because of their disease (Gross, 2020). “On days she knew the SS would clear out the hospital and send the sick to the gas chambers,” she would send some patients “back to their barracks so they would be spared” (Gross, 2020). One Auschwitz survivor called Perl “the doctor of the Jews” (Gross, 2020).
Mengele, having learned that Perl was a gynecologist, ordered her to report every pregnant woman directly to him, telling her that “they would be sent to a special camp, where they would receive extra bread rations and even milk” (Gross, 2020). However, Perl soon learned the truth when she witnessed pregnant women being beaten, attacked by dogs, and thrown into the crematorium alive (Gross, 2020). Perl decided that “it was up to me to save the life of the mothers, if there was no other way, than by destroying the life of their unborn children” (Gross, 2020). When Perl knew that a woman was pregnant, she did her best to hide the pregnancy whenever possible, and she ended the pregnancy when it could no longer be hidden (Gross, 2020). She spent her days working for Mengele, and her nights performing abortions in an effort to save the lives of the mothers.
Perl survived the Holocaust. She went on to work in labor and delivery at Mount Sinai Hospital in Manhattan before opening her own practice “dedicated to helping women with infertility” (Gross, 2020). In 1978, she learned that her daughter had also survived and was living in Israel. She moved to Israel to live with her daughter and grandson and volunteered her services at gynecology clinics delivering babies until her death in 1988 (Gross, 2020).
Nuremberg Code
Following the Holocaust, medical professionals were tried for war crimes and crimes against humanity during the “doctors trial” portion of the Nuremberg Military Tribunal case of United States v. Karl Brandt et al. During the trial, issues of medical ethics brought up by the medical experiments performed on prisoners took center stage. What is now known as the “Nuremberg Code” was established from this trial. The Nuremberg Code established 10 key ethical principles to be followed for all medical experimentation including: voluntary patient consent, avoidance of unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury, the degree of risk should never exceed the importance of the problem solved by the experiment, human subjects should be able to end the experiment when physical or mental continuation seems impossible, and that scientist should be prepared to end the experiment at any stage (Shuster, 1997). The Nuremberg Code is widely considered to be the “most important document in the history of the ethics of medical research” and continues to guide the “principles that ensure the rights of subjects in medical research” to this day (Shuster, 1997).
Additional Resources:
To learn more about medical care and Jewish physician experiences during the Holocaust, explore the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum’s Medical Care, Nazism, and the Holocaust Collection. This collection includes diary entries, oral histories and interviews, photographs, official letters and manuscripts.
References:
Boston University. (2012, February 18). A history of Jewish doctors during the Holocaust. Boston University YouTube Channel. https://youtu.be/LI6qcshy-Kc
The Lancet is one of Himmelfarb Library’s most highly used journal titles with more than 31,500 uses in 2020. This equates to an impressive 605 article downloads per week and 86 article downloads a day! But did you know that Himmelfarb provides access to numerous other Lancet titles including specialty titles like Lancet Infectious Diseases, Lancet Public Health, and Lancet Oncology?
Published by Elsevier, The Lancet (main title) publishes scientific knowledge with the aim of improving health and advancing human progress. Started in 1823, today the journal ranked as one of the top medical journals in Journal Citation Reports with a 5-year impact factor of 77.237.
However, you may not know that Himmelfarb Library provides access to 19 different Lancet titles! In addition to the main title (both the British and North American editions), Himmelfarb’s subscriptions include the following Lancet titles:
Regardless of your specialty or interest, The Lancet likely has a specialty journal to fit your interest, and Himmelfarb can provide you access to these titles. Lancet articles can be found by searching databases like PubMed, SCOPUS, and CINAHL. Discover what these specialty titles have to offer and explore Himmelfarb’s collection of Lancet titles today!
January is National Blood Donor Month. President Lyndon B. Johnson signed a proclamation designating January as National Blood Donor Month (NBDM) on December 31, 1969 (AABB, 2021). Originally meant to honor blood donors and to encourage more people to give blood during the winter months when blood supplies are traditionally low due to lagging donations from the holidays and cold and flu season, it is not uncommon for there to be shortages in the blood supply during January.
January 2022 is no exception! According to a joint statement put out by the Association for the Advancement of Blood and Biotherapies (AABB), America’s Blood Centers, and the American Red Cross, the nation’s blood supply is currently at a critically low level. The joint statement explains that blood centers have reported less than a one-day supply of certain blood types. As of yesterday, January 11, 2022, 36% of the country’s blood centers have a one-day supply or less, and only 2% of the nation’s blood centers reported having a three day or more supply (enough to meet normal operating demands) according to America’s Blood Centers. The American Red Cross, which supplies 40% of the nation's blood supply, states that the organization is facing “its worst blood shortage in over a decade, posing a concerning risk to patient care” (American Red Cross, 2022).
While the blood supply is traditionally lower in January, the current COVID-19 case surge, winter storms, blood drive cancellations, staffing challenges and donor eligibility misinformation have all posed additional threats to the current blood supply. The American Red Cross states that an overall 10% decline in donations since March 2020, and a 62% decline in college and high school blood drives resulting from the pandemic have also influenced the blood shortage crisis (American Red Cross, 2022). Meanwhile, the demand for blood has not decreased. According to the joint statement, “blood donations are needed now to avert the need to postpone potential lifesaving treatments” (AABB, America’s Blood Centers, American Red Cross, 2022).
Regardless of your blood type, donating can make a positive impact! The requirements for donating blood are simple: Donors must be healthy and feeling well, be at least 17 years old, and weigh 110 pounds or more. If you have donated blood recently, wait at least 56 days before making another donation.
You can participate in National Blood Donor Month and help replenish critically low blood supplies by scheduling an appointment to donate blood today! The American Red Cross is currently offering extra incentives to blood donors who donate by January 31, 2022 including a chance to win a trip to Super Bowl LVI! Contact one of the following organizations to find a blood collection site near you:
Donating blood is safe as blood donation sites have adapted safety protocols to comply with local, state, and federal safety regulations to protect blood donors and staff. Donors and staff are required to wear masks, donor beds meet social distancing needs, and cleaning processes have been enhanced. One unit of blood can save up to three lives, yet less than 5% of eligible donors give blood. Donating blood is an easy and free way you can make a positive contribution during these times, so celebrate National Blood Donor Month by donating in January!
Himmelfarb welcomes new staff: Ashford Lanquist (bottom left) and Max Close (top right).
If you’ve been to Himmelfarb Library recently, you may have noticed some new faces at the Reference and Circulation Desks! Two new staff members joined us in the month of November: Max Close is our new Reference Specialist, and Leland Ashford Lanquist (Ashford or Ash) is our new Evening/Weekend Circulation Supervisor. We are thrilled to have them both as part of the Himmelfarb team!
Max can often be found at the Himmelfarb Reference Desk ready to answer your reference and library related questions. In addition to his reference duties, Max will also be an integral part of planning Himmelfarb’s annual art show, which will be returning Spring 2022 after a hiatus last year due to the pandemic. Max is originally from Concord, Massachusetts, but moved to the DC area (Silver Spring) just over two years ago to attend graduate school at American University. Max completed his M.A. in Public History at American University in May 2021, and brings experience in archives, museum collections, library resources, and research to his position.
Ashford can often be found at the Himmelfarb Circulation Desk helping patrons, assisting student employees, or processing 3D printing requests. Ashford will be an integral part of hiring, training, scheduling and supervising new student employees and keeping things running smoothly at the Circulation Desk in the evenings and weekends. Since Ashford’s normal working hours include times when the reference desk is closed, he will be available to provide basic reference assistance to users as needed in the evening and late night hours. Ashford grew up in Nashville, Tennessee, and recently moved from Seattle, Washington where he was attending graduate school, to the DC area in November to join the Himmelfarb team. He recently completed his Master of Library and Information Science degree at the University of Washington in June 2021, and brings experience in libraries, community engagement, research, and technology to his position.
In addition to Max and Ashford joining the Himmelfarb team, a number of other Himmelfarb staff are celebrating career milestones this year, ranging from five years to thirty-five years of service with GW! Congratulations to the following Himmelfarbians on your service to GW and to Himmelfarb Library! Himmelfarb is proud of each of you for your dedication, commitment, and accomplishments during your time at GW and at Himmelfarb Library!
While it’s no secret that predatory publishers have existed for years, there appears to be a recent trend of scam guest editors infiltrating legitimate scholarly journals and taking over special issues of journals published by large, trusted publishers. Publishers including Elsevier, Taylor and Francis, and Springer Nature have all fallen victim to this new tactic used by scammers. It appears that the scholarly publishing community now has to not only be wary of predatory journals, but predatory editors as well.
The Arabian Journal of Geosciences, published by Springer Nature, has published 412 suspicious articles in recent months. Most of these articles were complete nonsense and included topics unrelated to geosciences including swimming, basketball, “sea-level height and aerobics training”, and “sports-injury insurance along with rainfall” (Bartlett, 2021). The founder and editor-in-chief of Arabian Journal of Geosciences claimed that his email account had been hacked, and that he was “just as perplexed as everyone else about how so many ridiculous papers… made it into the journal” (Bartlett, 2021).
In April 2021, computer science researchers noticed journal articles using strange terms that they called “tortured phrases” (Else, 2021b). The phrases they noticed included terms like “counterfeit consciousness” instead of “artificial intelligence,” and “colossal information” instead of “big data” (Else, 2021b). One Elsevier journal in particular, Microprocessors and Microsystems, seemed to have published 31 of these phrases in a single article!
In both of these cases, the sham papers were discovered by outside entities - not by journal editors, the journal’s editorial boards, or even by the publisher. The Springer Nature articles were discovered by commenters on PubPeer, “a website that allows readers to dissect scientific papers after they’re published” (Bartlett, 2021). The Elsevier papers were discovered by Guillaume Cabanac and a group of computer scientists working on a study (Else, 2021a). Cabanac and his team suspected that the “tortured phrases” resulted from the use of automated translation software or other software that can be used to help disguise plagiarism (Bartlett, 2021). They identified around 500 questionable articles with “critical flaws” that included nonsensical text and plagiarized text and images (Bartlett, 2021).
Springer Nature and Elseiver both launched investigations. Elsevier identified 400 articles in which the “peer review process was compromised” (Marcus, 2021). Elsevier issued a statement explaining that “the integrity and rigor of the peer-review process” had fallen “beneath the high standards expected by Microprocessors and Microsystems” (Marcus, 2021). Elsevier also acknowledged that a “configuration error in the editorial system” resulting from a system migration temporarily prevented appropriate editors from handling papers for approval (Else, 2021b). This issue was resolved soon after being discovered. Elsevier began to re-assess all papers that were published in the special issues in question and has made the appropriate retractions and expressions of concern. In addition, the publisher began to take a deeper look into the “overall processes regarding Special Issues in all subject areas” and introduced “further checks to ensure that all accept decisions are confirmed by an Editor in Chief or editorial board member and to alert staff to irregularities as a Special Issue progresses” (Marcus, 2021).
The Springer Nature investigation exposed “deliberate attempts to subvert the trust-based editorial process and manipulate the publication record” according to a spokesperson for the publisher (Else, 2021a). It’s common for journals to publish special issues of articles focusing on a specific topic. It’s also common for these special issues to be “overseen by guest editors who are experts in the research topic, but are not usually involved in the day-to-day editorial work of the journal” (Else, 2021a). In recent years, it seems that the number of guest editors using these special issues to disseminate low quality research has become more noticable. Ivan Oransky of Retraction Watch stated that “it is not clear whether special-issue scamming is becoming more common or whether it is just becoming more visible. I do think that the journals are waking up to it, actually looking for it and having systems in place” (Else, 2021a).
While it’s alarming that scammers have been able to use special issues of legitimate journals published by well-respected publishers to disseminate low-quality or even pseudo-science articles, it’s encouraging that these publishers are starting to take steps to prevent this from happening in the future. Elsevier now “validates the identities and qualifications of guest editors” in addition to having added the additional measure of having an Editor-in-Chief or editorial board member confirm each paper’s acceptance in an effort to catch irregularities (Else, 2021a). Springer Nature is not only “putting extra checks in place,” but they are “developing artificial-intelligence tools that can identify and prevent attempts to deliberately manipulate the system” (Else, 2021a). Springer Nature also plans to share the evidence they are gathering regarding “how the deceptions are carried out” with other publishers (Else, 2021a).
Do you need to get or create citations, but aren’t sure how to get them quickly? Himmelfarb Library has resources that can help you get and create the citations you need for your resources.
Citations are a means of giving proper credit to the sources you use, allow your audience to look up the sources you use, and add credibility and transparency to your work. In addition, failing to cite your sources is plagiarism, and can have serious consequences to your academic and professional career. Himmelfarb Librarian Tom Harrod provides an excellent explanation about why it’s important to cite your sources in this Why Cite video.
Many of Himmelfarb’s resources provide citations with the click of a button! Himmelfarb’s library catalog, which can be searched by using the search bar on the library’s homepage, provides citations for most of our resources by simply clicking the citation button. You can then select your desired citation style, and copy and paste the citation to your document.
Many Himmelfarb databases including PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL, and AccessMedicine also provide citations for resources. While these automatically generated citations are extremely convenient and can be a great time-saver, it’s important to double check citations before including them in your work. You may find that the formatting is slightly off and corrections may be necessary.
Do you need an easy place to gather, manage, store and share your citations and bibliography? RefWorks may be the tool for you! It’s easy to upload documents and bibliographic information to your RefWorks library. The Reference Citation Manager allows you to import citations and format your paper. If you are new to RefWorks and want to learn more about using this tool, be sure to watch our Introduction to RefWorks video taught by Himmelfarb Librarian Paul Levett.
Are you ready to tackle creating your own citations from scratch? Or perhaps you need to check to make sure those automatically generated citations are formatted correctly. Himmelfarb’s APA, AMA, Harvard citation style guides are excellent tools for creating citations or checking formatting of existing citations. We also have citation tutorials available to provide additional help.
Himmelfarb even has resources to help with more complicated citation needs. Do you have a list of citations in one format, but need to convert them into a different format? Learn how to change between citation styles with Himmelfarb Librarian Stacy Brody in our From AMA to APA: Quickly Changing Citation Styles video. Do you want to learn how to use citations to find related articles, identify influential articles, or track the impact of your own work? Learn how to use citations to accomplish these goals with Himmelfarb Librarian Tom Harrod in this Tracking Citations with Scopus video.
Whether you just need a quick citation to a journal article or book, need to create a citation from scratch, need a tool like RefWorks to help you organize your resources and format your paper, or want to watch a short tutorial on one of many different citation related topics, Himmelfarb is here to help! Still have questions about citations? Contact us through the Ask Us feature on our website, or email us at himmelfarb@gwu.edu.
With the development of COVID-19 vaccines, there has been a renewed interest in all things vaccine related and vaccine development has taken center stage on the global stage. In support of vaccine research, Springer Nature has compiled key resources on the past, present and future of vaccine research in a new Evolution of Vaccines resource that is available to you through Himmelfarb Library! Simply request access to these resources by completing a short form, and you will have access to these fantastic resources.
In the Present: The Latest Developments section of this resource, you will find case studies, blog posts, videos, review articles, and article collections all related to current vaccine developments. In the Future: What We Can Expect section of this resource, you will find review articles, perspectives, podcasts, blog posts, and article collections that explore how vaccines might progress in the future.
Also included in this collection are two short videos that do a fantastic job of explaining how vaccines work and how vaccines are developed:
Are you looking for ways to increase the impact and visibility of an upcoming publication? Would you like to use social media to get the word out, but aren’t sure how to do so effectively? One option is to include a ‘Tweetable Abstract’ in your paper’s abstract when you submit it for publication. In today’s world, Twitter can be a fantastic tool to help promote your research. Twitter can help you share your research with other researchers, journalists, decision makers, and the general public.
A tweetable abstract is a one or two line summary of your research, 280 characters or less, that communicates the main conclusion or the key message of your paper. Many publishers are now asking authors to include tweetable abstracts alongside traditional abstracts so the publisher can promote your article online. Tweetable abstracts are even showing up as part of article abstracts in databases such as PubMed and Scopus!
Once readers find your article, this tweetable abstract makes it easy for them to share your work on Twitter, thus expanding your potential audience even further. Here are some tips and tricks to help you create a tweetable abstract:
Keep it short! Twitter has a 280 characterlimit (characters - not words). Your abstract must be within this limit. That said, when it comes to Twitter, less is more. Shorter tweets tend to have more engagement with users.
Communicate the main conclusion or the key message of your paper. Here’s an example of a Tweet that does this from JAMA:
Consider using a leading question to attract interest. You can provide a short answer in your tweet if you have space. Here’s an example of a tweetable question based on an article from the Journal of Advanced Nursing Twitter account:
Avoid jargon - a tweetable abstract should be approachable, not intimidating.
Use relevant tags and hashtags to increase the number of people who see your tweet.
Turn buzzwords into hashtags.
Be strategic about when you post your tweetable abstract. Post it during times you know people are active on Twitter. Avoid posting in the middle of the night.
Include your Twitter handle in your tweetable abstract! This will allow others to reach out to you about your work. Here’s a good example of an author’s Twitter Handle being used in a tweet by the American Journal of Public Health (AJPH):
Want more information on how to create effective tweetable abstracts? Watch this short video from the Society for Conservation Biology to learn more about content, using hashtags, and including your Twitter Handle in your tweetable abstract.
A July 2021 post on MedPage Today discussed the fact that e-cigarette maker Juul had spent $51,000 to publish an entire special issue of articles in the American Journal of Health Behavior (AJHB) that promote the use of e-cigarettes. The special issue includes 11 studies focused on “the implications of switching from cigarettes to Juul systems, and dual use of cigarettes and Juul products” (Torjesen, 2021).
Juul partnered with Pinney Associates and the Centre for Substance Use Research (CSUR) to conduct these studies (Basen, 2021). According to the Pinney Associates website, they help “pharmaceutical companies and consumer healthcare clients to reduce their regulatory risk and enhance the commercial value of their life sciences products” (Pinney Associates, 2021). The company began working exclusively with Juul Labs, Inc. in 2019 “to advance relative risk-based regulation of nicotine and tobacco products” because “smokers should not have to suffer unnecessarily and risk dying prematurely because of how they get their nicotine” (Pinney Associates, 2021).
CSUR’s website states that they are an “independent research centre” with a goal of ensuring that those within the e-cigarette industry “have access to high quality behavioural research that can further their own goals of reducing the harms associated with the use of combustible tobacco products” (CSUR, 2021). The CSUR website even touted the recent special issue of AJHB as “reporting on the impact of the JUUL e-cigarette on adult smoker behavior” and later praised Juul’s commitment to “strengthening the evidence base around the contribution of electronic nicotine delivery systems in reducing the multiple harms of smoking” (CSUR, 2021).
According to MedPage Today, “Juul staff contributed to every article...while Pinney staff worked on 10 of them and CSUR staff conducted data analyses for seven” of the 11 articles published in this AJHB special issue. While AJHB policy is to charge researchers to publish in their journal, it is unusual for a company to purchase an entire issue.
A Juul news release from April 2021 stated that following Juul’s Premarket Tobacco Product Applications (PMTA) filing in July 2020, the 11 studies published in this special issue were a result of Juul’s regulatory team shifting their focus to publishing “key research underlying our application through peer-reviewed manuscripts.” The FDA is currently considering this filing and was expected to announce a ruling yesterday (September 9, 2021) on whether or not Juul vaping products could remain on the market. However, the FDA delayed this decision saying it needed more time to rule on Juul’s products according to an article published in The Washington Post and an NPR story that aired on All Things Considered yesterday.
AJHB has faced criticism following the publication of the special issue. The backlash has resulted in the retirement of Elbert Glover, the journal’s executive editor at the time of the issue’s publication, and the resignation of three editorial board members. While Juul claims that the company “must engage with the public health community on the science and facts underlying our products,” critics including David Dayen, executive editor of The American Prospect, point out that all articles published in the AJHB special issue “take the Juul party line that e-cigarettes help convert smokers away from combustible tobacco products, and thus aid public health” (Basen, 2021).
“After decades of tobacco companies paying previously credible scientists to produce studies designed to reach a predetermined outcome to foster their marketing goals and mislead the public about the overall state of the evidence, one thing should be abundantly clear: research funded by tobacco companies cannot be treated as a credible source of science or evidence. No credible scientific journal should allow a tobacco company to use it for this purpose.”
Matthew Myers, president of Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids (Torjesen, 2021)
Elbert Glover, AJHB’s now retired editor-in-chief, defended the journal's decision to publish the special issue in a recent BMJ news article and explained that “to reject a paper [based] on who funded the work rather than science is wrong '' (Torjesen, 2021). Glover also claimed that all manuscripts went through the full review process with no special treatment, and nothing was hidden during the review process (Torjesen, 2021). However, this claim was refuted by a reviewer who alleged that “reviewers were not informed of Juul’s role until they questioned ‘fishy’ aspects of the studies” (Redden, 2021). The unnamed reviewer explained she even recommended one study be rejected because it was so biased and made her think there was “No way it wasn’t funded by Juul” (Redden, 2021).
This situation is a reminder of the importance of thinking critically about research. Publication itself in a peer-reviewed journal is not enough to ensure that the research is good research. Things to consider when evaluating research include: potential conflict of interest (i.e. author affiliation and/or funding sources), bias, appropriate study design, sample size (and if the sample is representative of the wider population), data collection methods, and the use of appropriate statistical measures and methods.
The funding source of research that produced an article is perhaps the most relevant of these criteria in the case of the AJHB Juul special issue. A recent systematic review and meta-analysis analyzed articles published in peer-reviewed journals and assessed whether or not funding sources supported or opposed substitution of tobacco or nicotine products as harm reduction (Hendlin et al., 2019). Of the 826 articles reviewed, “23.9% disclosed support by industry; 49% of articles endorsed THR [tobacco harm reduction]; 42% opposed it, and 9% took a neutral or mixed positions” (Hendlin et al., 2019). The article concluded that “non-industry funded articles were evenly divided in stance, while industry-funded articles favored THR” and that “public health practitioners and researchers need to account for industry funding when interpreting the evidence in THR debates” (Hendlin et al., 2019).
Do you want to learn more about how to evaluate a resource’s credibility? Himmelfarb Library can help! Check out the following video for more information about evaluating a resource's credibility
CSUR: Centre for Substance Use Research. (2021). Centre for Substance Use Research website. https://www.csures.com/
Hendlin, Y. H., Vora, M., Elias, J., & Ling, P. M. (2019). Financial Conflicts of Interest and Stance on Tobacco Harm Reduction: A Systematic Review. American journal of public health, 109(7), e1–e8. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2019.305106
Torjesen I. (2021). Academic journal is criticised for publishing special issue funded by tobacco industry. BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 373, n1247. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n1247
