Tobacco Use Insights
Synopsis: An open access, peer reviewed electronic journal that covers smoking cessation and health impacts of tobacco use.
Indexing: Pubmed indexing for NIH-funded research.
Processing time: Decision in 2 weeks for 90% of papers.
Visibility: Most popular article read 350+ times.
About this journal
Aims and scope:
Tobacco Use Insights is an open access, peer reviewed journal which covers all aspects of the health impacts of tobacco use, as well as smoking cessation. ‘Tobacco Use Insights’ is interested in submissions on the short and long term effects of both tobacco (including smokeless and spitless products) and marijuana use, and tobacco-related cancer and other chronic disorders. Another focus is the health and economic benefits of smoking cessation; challenges surrounding nicotine addiction and the opportunities of medical treatment and harm reduction strategies.
The main focus of this journal is multidisplinary (including research from the social, psychological, epidemiological, prevention, economics, and treatment arenas). Tobacco control and advocacy topics from developing countries and for vulnerable groups are specifically encouraged.
Editorial standards and procedures:
Submissions, excluding editorials, letters to the editor and dedications, will be peer reviewed by two reviewers. Reviewers are required to provide fair, balanced and constructive reports.
Under our Fairness in Peer Review Policy authors may appeal against reviewers' recommendations which are ill-founded, unobjective or unfair. Appeals are considered by the Editor in Chief or Associate Editor.
Papers are not sent to peer reviewers following submission of a revised manuscript. Editorial decisions on re-submitted papers are based on the author's response to the initial peer review report.
National Institutes of Health Public Access Policy compliant:
As of April 7 2008, the US NIH Public Access Policy requires that all peer reviewed articles resulting from research carried out with NIH funding be deposited in the Pubmed Central archive.
If you are an NIH employee or grantee Libertas Academica will ensure that you comply with the policy by depositing your paper at Pubmed Central on your behalf.
Call for papers:
The Editor in Chief welcomes submissions. Submissions of the following types are invited:
- Original research articles.
- Reviews: comprehensive, authoritative, descriptions of any subject within the journal's scope. They may cover basic science and clinical reviews, ethics, pro/con debates, and equipment reviews.
- Commentaries: focused and opinionated articles on any subject within the journal's scope. These articles are usually related to a contemporary issue.
- Hypotheses: articles that present an original hypothesis backed solely by previously published results rather than any new evidence. They should outline significant progress in thinking that would also be testable.
- Letters to the Editor: these can be either a re-analysis of a previously published article, or a response to such a re-analysis from the authors of the original publication.
- Methodology articles: these discuss a new experimental method, test or procedure. The article must describe a demonstrable advance on what is currently available. The method needs to have been well tested and ideally, but not necessarily, used in a way that proves its value.
- Short reports: brief reports of data from original research.
- Meeting reports: a report pertaining to activity at a meeting or conference Articles published in this journal are immediately available without delay upon publication and enjoy substantial visibility.
- Case reports: reports of clinical cases that can be educational, describe a diagnostic or therapeutic dilemma, suggest an association, or present an important adverse reaction. Case reports must meet appropriate ethical standards.
All submissions are subject to prompt, objective and fair peer review in compliance with our Fairness in Peer Review Policy. Copyright in published articles remains with the author(s). Authors are continually informed of the progress of their paper and our staff are friendly and responsive.
One author recently wrote: "I would like to say that this is the most author-friendly editing process I have experienced in over 150 publications. Thank you most sincerely."
Criteria for publication:
Publication is dependent on peer reviewers' judgement of papers. Reviewers are asked to provide thoughtful and unbiased feedback to authors to ensure that the conclusions of papers are valid and manuscripts achieve reasonable standards of scholarliness and intelligibility.
Previous work in the field must be acknowledged and papers should read without unreasonable difficulty. Papers should fit comfortably within the scope of the journal.
Reviewers are asked to act in a fair, objective and constructive manner which maintains quality standards and helps authors to communicate their research. They are instructed that in areas of genuinely novel research issues may be raised which cannot immediately be resolved and that absolutely rigorous validation of data may therefore not be possible.
More information on the role of peer reviewers is available on the information for reviewers page. Where authors consider that reviewers have made recommendations which are unreasonable, unobjective or ill-founded they may appeal them to the Editor in Chief or Associate Editor under our Fairness in Peer Review Policy.
Articles submitted to other journals:
We are willing to consider papers which have been peer reviewed by other journals but not accepted for publication.
Services for authors:
Prior to peer review of your paper we can:
- Have your paper's reference style revised to meet our requirements,
- Have your paper's English revised by specialist English-speaking technical editors.
After peer review of your paper we can:
- Have your paper revised in accordance with peer reviewer's recommendations and have a summary of responses to the reviewers created by our specialist external substantive editors,
- Provide bound reprints of your article in colour or black and white ,
- Provide online-early rapid publication if your paper prior to typesetting.
What other authors have said:
Libertas Academica actively requests, receives and acts upon feedback from authors, readers and editorial boards. Here's what some recent authors have said about us:
"Within a couple of days the reviewers had been procured and the manuscript was out."
"The communication between your staff and me has been terrific. Whenever progress is made with the manuscript, I receive notice. Quite honestly, I've never had such complete communication with a journal."
"LA is different, and hopefully represents a kind of scientific publication machinery that removes the hurdles from free flow of scientific thought."
Article processing fees:
All submissions to this journal are subject to an article processing fee if they are accepted for publication. Article processing fees are used to fund the processing of your paper and development of the journal. Article processing fees are the only compulsory charge you will face and do not vary according to word count, page count, colour figures or any other factor. There is no additional charge for the author(s) to make any use of their article and no charge to readers to access it.
Full fee waivers are available for authors working in undeveloped nations and partial discounts of 20-50% are available to authors in other nations. Authors must be able to verifiably demonstrate their suitability for a discount or waiver. Availability of waivers and discounts is subject to monthly availability and is given at the publisher's discretion. Waivers and discounts must be applied for prior to submission. Neither are available after submission.
Register as a peer reviewer:
Do you wish to register as a peer reviewer? Or are you already a registered peer reviewer but you need to update your contact details? To register or update your details visit the peer reviewer registration form.
Applicants must be able to demonstrate at least five years of continuous experience in the journal's subject area including at least two in the previous 24 months.
Peer reviewers are sought. Click here to apply or to update your details.
Read an interview with the Editor in Chief, and the announcement of the launch of the journal.
Check the Publisher's Blog for recent news
Saliva Cotinine and Exhaled Carbon Monoxide in Real Life Waterpipe Smokers: A Post Hoc Analysis
Salameh Pascale1, Aoun Bacha Zeina2 and Waked Mirna3
1Pharmacist and Epidemiologist, Lebanese University, Beirut, Lebanon. 2Chest physician, HOTEL DIEU hospital, Beirut, Lebanon. 3Chest physician, St. George Hospital, Beirut, Lebanon.
Abstract
Introduction: We have already suggested that waterpipe (WP) smoking is associated with an increase in saliva cotinine and carbon monoxide in a small number of smokers.
Objective: The primary objective of this study was to confirm the increase in exhaled carbon monoxide (CO) and saliva cotinine equivalents levels in waterpipe smokers in a real smoking environment, compared with cigarettes smokers and never smokers. The secondary objective was to assess the factors associated with WP dependence according to the Lebanese Waterpipe Dependence Scale —11 (LWDS-11).
Methods: Three groups were included in the study: never smokers (n = 43), waterpipe smokers (n = 103), and cigarette smokers (n = 42). A questionnaire was completed for each participant, exhaled CO measured before and after waterpipe or cigarette smoking, and saliva cotinine equivalents dosed one hour after WP smoking or after one cigarette.
Results: Waterpipe smokers, like cigarette smokers, are exposed to nicotine and to CO. We found that levels of saliva cotinine equivalents were lower in waterpipe compared with cigarette smokers, but significantly higher than never smokers. In waterpipe smokers, saliva cotinine equivalents was mainly affected by the number of waterpipes per week and the size of the waterpipe. High levels were again found for expired CO, which increased by 500% in waterpipe smokers, in com- parison with 100% in cigarette smokers; in waterpipe smokers, the relative increase in CO was affected by the number of waterpipes smoked before measurements, while it was inversely associated to the number of persons with whom they were sharing the WP and to the WP size. WP dependence was significantly correlated with the number of smokers at home, at work, and the body mass index.
Conclusion: This is a confirmation of real life waterpipe tobacco smoking characteristics in Lebanon. It indicates that nicotine is only marginally retained in the bowl water where smoke passes, and that waterpipe smokers could be exposed to harmful substances, such as CO that was found to be quite high. The level of expired CO and salivary cotinine could be good tools to detect exposure to waterpipe tobacco smoking. In addition, obesity and surrounding smokers could increase the risk of WP dependence.
Readers of this also read:
- Saliva Cotinine and Exhaled Carbon Monoxide in Real Life Waterpipe Smokers: A Post Hoc Analysis
- A Case of Large Solitary Fibrous Tumor in the Retroperitoneum
- Plasma Carotenoids and Biomarkers of Oxidative Stress in Patients with prior Head and Neck Cancer
- L -Tryptophan: Basic Metabolic Functions, Behavioral Research and Therapeutic Indications
- Plasma Carotenoids and Biomarkers of Oxidative Stress in Patients with prior Head and Neck Cancer