The main concern of Tobacco Control is supply a forum for research, analysis, commentary, and debate on policies, programmes, and methods which are more likely to further the objectives of a comprehensive tobacco control policy. The introduction should indicate why the research reported or issues discussed are important in terms of controlling tobacco use, and the discussion section should include an analysis of how the research reported contributes to tobacco control objectives in papers submitted for review.
Papers firmly anchored to a strategic policy and programme context are more inclined to be accepted for book. Whilst the log seeks to reach a worldwide readership, writers must look into whether their intended submissions target problems or themes, that are probably be of great interest to scientists employed in other nations. Extremely parochial dilemmas, that have few classes for tobacco control policy outside a paper’s local context, are not likely to be provided with high concern. The manuscripts editors will generally speaking maybe perhaps not provide priority that is high:
- Studies of cigarette smoking prevalence as well as its correlates. They are most suitable to nationwide journals. Few people residing outside nation have an interest in whether that nation has 30% or 35% of cigarette cigarette cigarette smokers.
- Knowledge, attitudes, behaviour (KAB) studies of particular populace teams or health care professionals. Once more, they are better suited to national journals or even to wellness speciality that is professional. Few individuals far away will tend to be enthusiastic about (for instance) whether nurses in a local medical center are thinking about helping patients quit. Nationwide studies, and the ones using studies that are such original areas are of more interest.
- Reports that evoke unanimous “so what?” responses from the editors. They are documents with findings that seem to hold no importance that is obvious changing policy or training in tobacco control. They frequently display methodological finery, but don’t take us anywhere essential or interesting.
- Advice pieces where in fact the viewpoints are unoriginal, badly argued, naive or disregard for crucial issues that are ethical favour of sloganeering. 继续阅读