Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement
Our publication ethics and publication malpractice statement is based on the Code of Conduct and Best-Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors1 (developed by COPE). Our journal follows the ICMJE’s Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals2.In addition, we adhere to the standards on scholarly publishing as per the US NIH notice NOT-OD-18-0113. Please refer to our Principals of Transparency Checklist for further details.

All research submitted for publication in Tobacco Prevention & Cessation, must have been carried out within an appropriate ethical framework. Research involving human subjects, human material, or human data, must have been performed in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, Good Clinical Practice, and must have been approved by an appropriate ethics committee. For all research involving human subjects, informed consent to participate in the study should be obtained from participants or their guardian in the case of children. The Editors will seek assurances that all research has been approved by an appropriate research ethics committee and ethics approval numbers are requested.

E.U. European Publishing investigates into all cases of publication misconduct and as a member of CrossCheck’s plagiarism detection initiative it uses plagiarism detection software. The software checks submissions against millions of published research papers, documents on the web, and other relevant sources. All articles submitted to Tobacco Prevention & Cessation are assessed throught Ithenticate, and during all stages of revisions. If plagiarism or misconduct is found, immediate actions will be taken, including but not limited to the retraction of the article, publication of a retraction notice, etc.

We support the use of Checklists during manuscript preparation. Checklists are available for a number of study designs, including:
  • randomized trials (CONSORT),
  • systematic reviews (PRISMA),
  • observational studies (STROBE),
  • meta-analyses of observational studies (MOOSE) and
  • qualitative studies (RATS).

Corrections & Retractions
Should authors or reviewers identify an error in a manuscript, a correction letter will be published indicating where the mistakes were made, while the original source will be immediately corrected. In general, the COPE Guidelines for Retracting Articles4 are followed in this case. When faced with suspected misconduct the editors are advised to follow the relevant COPE Flowcharts.

Editorial Freedom
The Editor-in-Chief has full authority over the entire editorial content of the journal. The Editor-in-Chief is supported by expert international editorial boards comprised of individuals with relevant research, academic and or policy expertise. Together they make decisions on the validity and integrity of the submitted manuscripts in light of the journal's aim and scope.
The Editorial board's composition is regularly reviewed, while clear guidance to editorial board members about their expected functions and duties is provided. The editorial board is also engaged twice a year with updates on publication ethics and journal strategic development.

Provenance and peer review
All articles submitted undergo double blind peer review. In all cases the manuscript is also reviewed by at least one member of the editorial board and the Editor-in-Chief. Letters to the Editor and Editorials are peer reviewed internally. All articles have a specific provenance and peer review tab (commissioned vs. non commissioned; internally vs. externally peer reviewed)
Authors may suggest reviewers that are qualified to peer review the manuscript, provided that they have not collaborated closely in the near past and that they are not from the same institution. Authors may also note peer reviewers who they would not prefer to review this paper. While the authors suggestions are taken into account, the Editorial Office reserves the right to handle peer review at its discretion. Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents.
Reviewers are requested to report on the ethical aspects of the manuscript they are allocated to review and are requested to report also on the novelty, the impact, the statistical analysis, references and potential conflicts of interest.

1COPE Codes of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines.
2ICMJE Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals.
3Statement on Article Publication Resulting from NIH Funded Research.
4COPE Guidelines for retracting articles.