Journals issue corrections noting vaping researchers’ undisclosed ties to Juul

WASHINGTON — A journal published by the American Medical Association has corrected four articles from two of the nation’s top tobacco researchers, Ray Niaura and David Abrams, after STAT uncovered undisclosed ties the New York University professors had with the e-cigarette company Juul.

The articles corrected Tuesday by JAMA Network Open include a highly cited study comparing the level of toxic substances users of e-cigarettes are exposed to versus smokers of combustible cigarettes, and a study that examined whether e-cigarettes influenced the amount that young adults who had previously tried cigarettes lit up. There is no evidence that Juul played any role in any of the articles. Niaura and Abrams were each co-authors on two of the four articles.

The journal Nicotine and Tobacco Research has also decided to issue a correction, and the Annual Review of Public Health has issued an erratum, the editors of both journals confirmed to STAT, though they are not yet public.

Three other journals — Tobacco Control, the American Journal of Public Health, and Science — are investigating whether the authors violated these journals’ conflict of interest policies, spokespeople told STAT, though it is unclear if they will ultimately issue a correction. A spokesperson for AJPH noted that it is “normal practice” for a potential conflict to be investigated by the journal.

The controversy stems from Niaura’s and Abrams’ frequent collaboration with Juul, which was revealed by STAT last month based on previously secret emails between company executives and the researchers. The documents showed that the men allowed company executives to review an academic article prior to publishing, attended Juul scientific advisory board meetings, and were treated to meals with company executives, all without disclosing those connections to journal publishers or the public.

Niaura and Abrams have maintained that they never formally advised Juul, were not paid for their work, and therefore did not have to disclose their connection to the company to the journals. Both authors said, however, that in retrospect they would have reported their interactions with Juul to journal publishers. However, the corrections underscore that the journals believe disclosure was required.

Ivan Oransky, the co-founder of Retraction Watch and a former STAT contributor, said that the corrections are “entirely consistent with best practices and industry guidelines,” though he noted that under the guidelines, which are set by the Committee on Publication Ethics, journals could also choose to take the more stringent step of retracting papers because of an undisclosed conflict of interest.

Oransky also credited STAT’s reporting for the speed at which journals have corrected Niaura’s and Abrams’ papers.

“In publisher land [this is] lightning speed,” Oransky said. “I’m pretty confident that were it not for [STAT’s] story you wouldn’t have seen this action … let alone happen as quickly as it did.”

The articles corrected by JAMA Network Open all now state that both authors “between mid-2015 and 2020 [were] frequently communicating with Juul Labs personnel, for which there was no compensation, and receiving hospitality in the form of meals at some meetings.”

STAT’s reporting has also prompted one family of journals, Annual Reviews, to reevaluate how it deals with potential conflicts that do not rise to the level of formal advisory roles or paid positions within a company, according to its editor-in-chief, Richard Gallagher. Gallagher said he hopes the revised conflict-of-interest policy, which would likely span Annual Reviews’ 51 journals, will be released after the organization’s board meeting in October.

STAT’s coverage of chronic health issues is supported by a grant from Bloomberg Philanthropies. Our financial supporters are not involved in any decisions about our journalism.