AT Switzerland Calls for Editorial Review of Commentary on Vaping Published in International Journal of Public Health

Bern, 23 April 2026 – AT Switzerland has formally raised concerns with the editorial board of the International Journal of Public Health regarding a recently published commentary that presents vaping trends in Great Britain as a major public-health milestone. The organization is calling for a critical review of the article’s interpretation of evidence and the transparency of potential conflicts of interest among its authors.

In a letter addressed to the Editor-in-Chief, AT Switzerland outlines several scientific and ethical concerns regarding the commentary “Harm Reduction Implications of Vaping Overtaking Smoking in Great Britain” by Adebisi, Polosa and George (2026).

Scientific interpretation raises important concerns

The article in question is a commentary rather than original research, meaning that its conclusions are based on interpretation of existing data rather than new empirical evidence. According to AT Switzerland, this distinction is critical when strong policy recommendations are advanced.

A central claim in the commentary—that vaping prevalence exceeding smoking prevalence represents a major public-health milestone—is considered overstated. The comparison relies on different surveys using distinct methodologies, limiting the reliability of direct comparisons.

More broadly, AT Switzerland highlights concerns about the risk of confusing correlation with causation. Declines in smoking rates observed alongside rising vaping prevalence cannot be automatically attributed to vaping itself, particularly in contexts such as the United Kingdom where long-standing tobacco-control policies—including taxation, smoke-free legislation, plain packaging and cessation services—have played a major role in reducing smoking rates.

The letter also notes that optimistic interpretations—such as assumptions that dual use is temporary or that youth risks are outweighed by adult cessation—are emphasized, while uncertainties and long-term risks receive less attention.

Questions about transparency of affiliations and funding

In addition to scientific concerns, AT Switzerland emphasizes the importance of full transparency regarding affiliations and funding relationships, particularly in a field with a long history of industry influence.

Publicly available information indicates that some authors of the commentary have been associated with research initiatives connected to organizations funded directly or indirectly by the tobacco industry. These links, while partially disclosed, warrant careful editorial scrutiny to ensure that all relevant relationships are clearly reported and contextualized.

One author has clear and long standing collaboration with the tobacco industry (https://www.tobaccotactics.org/article/riccardo-polosa/ ) and another one has received funding from organisation financed by PMI (https://www.tobaccotactics.org/article/knowledge-action-change/ ).

AT Switzerland notes that transparency is not a procedural formality but a fundamental requirement to maintain trust in scientific literature and public-health decision-making.

A broader issue: protecting the integrity of scientific publishing

Beyond this individual article, AT Switzerland highlights a broader concern: the continued publication of strongly framed policy commentary by authors linked to industry-funded networks risks undermining trust in scientific publishing.

The tobacco industry has a well-documented history of manipulating scientific narratives, influencing research agendas and shaping public policy debates. In this context, academic journals play a crucial role as gatekeepers of credible and independent evidence.

AT Switzerland therefore calls for heightened vigilance, stronger disclosure standards and careful editorial oversight when evaluating submissions related to nicotine and tobacco products.

Request for editorial action

In its communication to the journal, AT Switzerland has requested that the editorial team:

• Review the interpretation of evidence and policy implications presented in the article
• Assess whether conflict-of-interest declarations are complete and sufficiently transparent
• Consider whether clarification or editorial action is warranted
• Evaluate whether retraction should be considered if concerns are substantiated

These steps, AT Switzerland argues, are necessary to ensure that scientific publications remain reliable sources of evidence for policymakers, public-health professionals and the public.

Key message

Scientific credibility and transparency are essential in tobacco and nicotine research. When publications promote strong policy positions based on selective interpretation or insufficient disclosure of affiliations, the integrity of public-health science is at risk.