The Invisible Rules and the Weight of Silence
On Editorial Censorship, Conflicts of Interest, and the Crisis of Scientific Integrity: The Case of Charles and Roger.
The email arrived cold, without a preamble, and laden with relentless bureaucracy. Like an unappealable verdict. Rejected. Conflict of interest. Case closed.
One of the two authors of the scientific article—a seasoned researcher and university professor with decades of experience and an impeccable record in various prestigious journals—reread the message in disbelief.
His review article, which critically examined previous studies in his field, had been dismissed because his impartiality had been allegedly compromised.
Not because he had received funding from any entity with a vested interest in the subject but because he had once served as a director—though almost exclusively as a science communicator—for a civil society organization advocating for citizens' rights. An organization with no external funding, no private donations, and no history of corporate ties. Nothing. Just ideas. Just principles.
A disturbing irony: while funding opens doors, adherence and loyalty to principles seem to close them. Neutrality, he understood with bitter clarity, was not a universal value but a privilege reserved for those who, willingly or not, aligned with the expectations imposed by the status quo.
Though it wasn’t the first time he had encountered obstacles in scientific publishing, he had never witnessed anything so blatant.
"The rejection was sudden and abrupt, which suggests an ulterior, possibly hidden, motive," he explains with the calmness of someone who has meticulously examined every possibility. "We can’t prove it, but neither can we rule out that the academic editor was a co-author of some of the studies we challenged."
The words land with the weight of a suspicion that, though unconfirmed, is impossible to ignore. The conflict was not in his manuscript. It lay in who was evaluating it—and why.
A Manuscript That Disturbs
The text Charles attempted to publish was no ordinary paper. It was a comprehensive review of 41 studies investigating the biological effects of e-cigarettes on cells and laboratory animals.
What made it unsettling was that these studies contained serious methodological flaws, calling their conclusions into question and, by extension, the validity of the regulatory policies based on them.
This meant that regulatory decisions might be rooted in an exaggerated perception of risk, potentially harming millions of users.
“We observed that all the studies used the same laboratory equipment—manufactured by a Canadian company—to generate e-cigarette aerosol under experimental conditions,” Charles explains with the precision of someone who has scrutinized every detail.
“When we replicated the process, we found that the aerosol produced reached overheating levels and generated chemical degradation byproducts that had little to do with the conditions real users experience. Moreover, in half of the studies, both the cells and the rodents were exposed to nicotine doses so high that they were entirely unrealistic in any real-world scenario.”
His voice does not hide his concern. The findings carried enormous implications.
Charles knows that these methodological distortions do more than just skew results—they have the potential to shape policies and public perceptions based on a profoundly flawed scientific foundation. If these studies formed the basis of understanding e-cigarettes, their risks would be exaggerated without solid scientific backing.
A message that, quite clearly, many sectors—from the pharmaceutical industry to public health agencies and tobacco control advocates—preferred to keep in the shadows.
A Standard Peer Review… Until It Wasn’t
According to Charles, the peer review process proceeded routinely without issues. Three reviewers evaluated the manuscript. Two recommended it for publication, suggesting only minor adjustments to the content’s organization. The third, more critical, submitted a brief report with just one negative comment.
Nothing suggested that the article should be rejected.
“We addressed all the reviewers’ comments, as per standard procedure,” Charles recounts. “We expected further feedback to continue the process, but suddenly, the academic editor intervened abruptly and rejected the manuscript, completely disregarding the reviewers' evaluations.”
The reason was as simple as it was disturbing: a terse and ambiguous ‘conflict of interest’ had become the excuse to reject a solid piece of work that met all scientific standards.
For Charles, the decision was incomprehensible. He had never received funding from the tobacco industry or e-cigarette manufacturers. His only affiliation was as a founding member of a nonprofit organization—without external donations or corporate backing—dedicated to promoting access to objective information about vaping.
“They accused us without presenting a shred of evidence. They demanded clarifications about supposed conflicts of interest in an aggressive and accusatory tone,” Charles recalls, a mix of disbelief and disappointment in his voice. “We responded in detail, addressing every point. But we received no reply. A few days later, the manuscript was rejected.”
His words reflect a deeper uncertainty and frustration: a process that, in theory, should have been fair and transparent seemed to lean toward power, subtly relegating evidence to the background.
Unfortunately, Charles’s case is not an isolated anomaly.
What baffles him most is that his manuscript was arbitrarily rejected by the journal where he had previously earned recognition: Toxics. With an international reputation, this open-access publication analyzes the impact of chemicals and potentially harmful materials on ecosystems and human health. Its mission is clear: to provide scientific evidence that informs regulatory policies and risk mitigation strategies.
The editorial structure of Toxics is organized into fourteen specialized sections, each overseen by an editor. Peer review, considered the backbone of scientific rigor, requires at least two reviewers to evaluate each manuscript. In theory, decisions range from "acceptance without changes" to "rejection with an option to resubmit," with possible minor or major revision recommendations.
However, despite its explicit commitment to transparency and rigor, Charles’s case exposes troubling cracks in the system. His rejection—targeting an article that, while methodologically sound, challenged established toxicology consensus—sheds light on a disturbing reality: editorial decisions are not always based on scientific quality. Instead, they can be tainted by external pressures, undisclosed interests, or ideological biases.
The Appeal Attempt and an Insulting Response
Outraged, Charles and his colleague Roger submitted a formal appeal, arguing that the rejection did not reflect the reviewers' evaluations or adhere to the established stages of the peer review process.
“We requested that the decision be reconsidered and additional experts review the manuscript. We had no objection to undergoing further evaluation,” Charles emphasizes, with the conviction of someone who still believes in the system's impartiality.
Three weeks later, the journal’s response arrived. Another rejection—this time, in an even more hostile tone. “It was an even shorter and more aggressive reiteration of the previous one,” Charles recalls, with a mix of resignation and disbelief.
There were no explanations. No technical or scientific arguments were provided. A blunt, final door slammed shut, leaving no room for dialogue or reconsideration.
That was the abrupt end of the process.
According to the guidelines of publishing giant MDPI, the journal's parent company, only one appeal is allowed per manuscript. This left the authors trapped in a system that, under the guise of formal procedures, allowed no room for defense or transparency.
What was most unsettling was that the editor did not formally justify the manuscript's rejection based on Charles’s alleged conflict of interest with the civil society organization he had helped found.
The accusation was never explicit—it was merely insinuated on November 26, relying on an outdated source: a link to a website that had been inactive for three years. The alleged connection was part of a chain of indirect associations mentioned on Tobacco Tactics, a site managed by the University of Bath, which groups funded by Bloomberg Philanthropies have repeatedly used to discredit scientists critical of the official tobacco control narrative.
But this version omitted a crucial detail: Charles’s name didn’t appear on Tobacco Tactics. The accusation was not only baseless but relied on outdated information and a strategy previously used against researchers with dissenting views in the scientific debate on tobacco.
And he wasn’t the only one targeted. In parallel, the editor insinuated that Roger had financial ties to the vaping industry. In response, the authors provided clear evidence: Roger’s company does not receive funding from e-cigarette manufacturers, and Charles ended his affiliation with the organization in 2022. They expected the editor to at least acknowledge these clarifications. He didn’t. There was no communication. There was no response. Just five days later, the manuscript was rejected.
"It's much worse than we originally thought," Charles reflects. "If the editor had rejected the article citing a conflict of interest, he would have taken a clear stance, even if it was misguided. But what he did was far worse—he refused to respond to our clarifications, ignored our evidence, and rejected the work without further explanation. This violates the basic communication rules between editors and authors and allows the concept of conflict of interest to be wielded as a shield to justify emotional and arbitrary decisions."
The problem, then, is not just the article's censorship. The abuse of power allows certain editors to make unilateral decisions without accountability, without answering challenges, and without demonstrating that the rejection is based on objective scientific criteria.
It’s the transformation of the editorial structure into a tool of control—where the status quo of the tobacco control technocracy is shielded from any evidence that dares to challenge it.
A Threat That Must Be Eradicated?
The conclusion was unavoidable for Charles: his manuscript wasn’t rejected for scientific shortcomings but for political reasons. The story, however, was not new. Research in tobacco harm reduction (THR) has long been entangled in a web of ideological tensions.
“Many health agencies, including the World Health Organization, take an openly hostile stance against vaping. They don’t see it as a harm reduction strategy but as a threat that must be eradicated,” Charles explains, fully aware of the institutional resistance to any alternative perspective.
Unlike traditional financial conflicts of interest, where motivations are often clear and quantifiable, control and censorship in the THR field stem from institutional structures with subtler, less visible, but equally powerful interests.
According to Charles—an assessment echoed by a former WHO director who preferred to remain anonymous—the tobacco industry no longer dictates the game's rules. Instead, it is shaped by a global technocracy that operates under the guise of scientific neutrality while striving to enforce a uniform narrative on tobacco control.
“There is a dominant agenda that does not tolerate any evidence challenging the idea that e-cigarettes are just as harmful as conventional tobacco,” Charles states firmly.
In this dynamic, scientific dissent is not merely met with skepticism—it confronts an institutional machine that defends a single perspective, shielded by the authority of international organizations and financed by philanthropic interests with power rivaling that of nation-states.
Charles’s review directly challenged that narrative, questioning the results and methodology of the studies that upheld the official stance. His findings were simply intolerable in a system where science has become an ideological battlefield of multimillion-dollar interests.
“We identified serious methodological flaws in 41 studies that concluded e-cigarettes pose a high risk. These findings undoubtedly made those who defend that position uncomfortable,” Charles asserts, convinced that, in this case, the issue was not the quality of the evidence but the political implications of exposing an inconvenient truth.
Gagged Science and the Power That Remains Unseen
The blow was both academic and personal. “It was frustrating—not just because we put an immense amount of effort into this research, but because the editorial system leaves authors completely defenseless,” Charles admits, with the resignation of someone who has seen the essence of scientific inquiry betrayed.
His disappointment goes beyond the rejection itself—it exposes a system that, instead of safeguarding the integrity of science, appears to bow to interests that have little to do with the truth.
The episode shattered years of trust built with the journal.
“We had published three review articles in Toxics, all well received, accumulating thousands of views and dozens of citations. The journal invited us to submit more papers and even discounted publication fees. But all of that was lost due to the decision of an abusive editor,” Charles laments, highlighting the abrupt shift in the editorial relationship and exposing the fragility of scientific publishing when it collides with hidden interests.
While the influence of pharmaceutical industries remains a persistent concern in medical science, research on tobacco harm reduction seems to operate under a more subtle and perhaps more insidious dynamic.
Here, censorship does not come from Big Tobacco or e-cigarette manufacturers—it originates from a global technocracy, cloaked in the legitimacy of public health and sustained by a complex web of public and private funding.
Institutions with far-reaching connections—such as the World Health Organization (WHO)—and powerful philanthropic patrons like Bloomberg Philanthropies wield influence beyond shaping research agendas; they also determine what gets published and what remains in the shadows.
Unlike tobacco companies, which have been institutionally marginalized since the signing of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC), this new technocracy operates with virtually uncontested authority, free from the same rigorous scrutiny.
Bloomberg Philanthropies’ influence over the WHO has been pivotal in cementing a global narrative that outright rejects harm reduction strategies, dismissing the growing body of scientific evidence that challenges this stance.
This alliance has helped sustain international policies aligned with a prohibitionist approach while systematically blocking alternatives that could profoundly impact global public health. Ironically, in the name of protecting health, doors are being closed to interventions that, according to emerging research, could save lives.
But What Is a Conflict of Interest?
In theory, the concept is simple. A conflict of interest arises when a researcher, reviewer, or editor has financial, ideological, or personal ties that could compromise their impartiality. While traditionally associated with direct financial links—such as paid consultancies, stock ownership, or corporate funding—it can also stem from less obvious factors: ideological convictions, professional affiliations, or personal relationships that distort the objective evaluation of a study.
MDPI’s editorial policies, under which Toxics operates, seem clear: "All authors must disclose any relationships or interests that could inappropriately influence their work." This criterion extends beyond financial interests to include non-financial influences, such as personal beliefs, professional affiliations, or past relationships.
However, in Charles’s case, this broad definition allowed for an arbitrary interpretation: his past affiliation with a nonprofit organization, with no commercial ties or external funding, was framed as a threat to his impartiality. Paradoxically, the affiliations of other researchers with institutions that openly oppose tobacco harm reduction are rarely subjected to the same scrutiny.
But the issue at stake wasn’t his objectivity—it was that his conclusions were inconvenient.
What was really happening was a confrontation with power. His article challenged the scientific foundations of previous studies that indirectly benefited specific industries or reinforced a dominant institutional narrative.
The real threat wasn’t his alleged partiality but his challenge to a discourse serving powerful and influential public health actors.
In principle, the rule aims to prevent bias in research. In practice, however, its application is selective: When a study is funded by a corporation, simply disclosing the conflict is enough for it to be accepted into the editorial process. However, when a scientist has ties to a social organization that promotes inconvenient ideas, their impartiality is questioned to the extent that censorship becomes justified.
This raises an inevitable question: Does the editorial process truly protect scientific impartiality, or has it become a mechanism of exclusion that silences inconvenient voices?
The Rules of the Game: The Double Standard of Scientific Ethics
Leading scientific journals typically adhere to guidelines set by entities such as the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). These frameworks emphasize transparency and the disclosure of conflicts of interest. In theory, any financial or personal ties that could compromise a researcher’s objectivity must be openly declared.
However, articles with explicit financial conflicts of interest are rarely rejected. Disclosing funding sources is often enough for the publication process to proceed unhindered.
In tobacco harm reduction research, however, the standard is applied far more restrictively. Here, even a distant, ideological, or entirely indirect connection to the vaping industry can be enough to block an article before its scientific content is even considered.
In contrast, researchers funded by globally influential foundations—such as Bloomberg Philanthropies or the Gates Foundation—need only declare their funding source for their studies to be accepted without significant scrutiny.
This double standard is based on a fundamentally flawed assumption: public or philanthropic funding is inherently neutral and, therefore, free from vested interests.
But the neutrality of money is never absolute.
Under this logic, a dangerous double standard emerges: while some voices are systematically silenced due to alleged ideological ties, others—aligned with the dominant institutional consensus—receive almost automatic protection.
The result is a structural bias that imposes undeclared limits on the diversity of scientific perspectives, affecting academic freedom and access to a more comprehensive understanding of public health issues.
Cases like Charles and Roger’s are not exceptions. Across various fields of science, conflict of interest has been weaponized to shape which research gains visibility—and which is pushed into the shadows.
In the tobacco industry, for example, studies funded by cigarette manufacturers were published for decades with minimal ethical objections, legitimizing narratives that downplayed the risks of smoking.
In contrast, independent research examining the potential harms of e-cigarettes has faced numerous obstacles to dissemination for over twenty years, even when adhering to rigorous scientific standards.
This pattern extends beyond tobacco. For instance, studies that minimize risks often encounter little editorial resistance in the ultra-processed food and energy industries. Meanwhile, critical research faces constant hurdles—from arbitrary rejections to exaggerated methodological scrutiny.
However, unlike traditional financial conflicts of interest, control, and censorship in tobacco harm reduction stem from institutional structures with more complex, ideologically and politically driven interests. For Charles, the tobacco industry is no longer the direct enforcer. Instead, a global technocracy seeks to consolidate a uniform narrative on tobacco control under the guise of protecting public health.
These examples reveal a deeper pattern: When research challenges established narratives, knowledge control is no longer just about scientific ethics—it becomes a power struggle.
In such cases, science is no longer judged solely by the rigor of its methods or the validity of its findings. Instead, it is measured by its alignment with dominant agendas—those that decide which truths are acceptable and which must be silenced.
What to Do When Science Is Silenced?
Charles refuses to give up. His first response to censorship was clear: submit the article to another scientific journal, hoping to find a fairer editorial process. At the same time, he decided to publish the study on Qeios, an open-access preprint platform, ensuring that the scientific community could access his findings without the barriers imposed by traditional journals.
In parallel, he sought support from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)—one of the few organizations offering assistance in editorial misconduct cases.
However, his optimism is tempered by a harsh reality:
“The editorial system is designed to protect editors, not authors,” Charles laments, fully aware that the balance of power rarely favors researchers, especially when their findings challenge entrenched interests.
Despite the obstacles, Charles and other researchers who have faced similar experiences propose a series of reforms to enhance transparency and fairness in the editorial process. Among his key suggestions are:
“Increasing Transparency in Peer Review". Publishing reviewer and editor reports, while protecting the anonymity of those who choose it, to ensure that evaluation processes are accessible and understandable for authors;
“Limiting the Absolute Authority of a Single Editor". Preventing unilateral decisions by expanding editorial committees to include a more diverse and representative group of experts;
“Establishing Multiple Levels of Appeal”. Creating formal appeal mechanisms allows authors to defend their work at different stages, with independent reviewers not linked to the original editor or the involved institutions.
For Charles, only through these measures can academic censorship be challenged and the growing politicization of science curbed. He acknowledges that the issue affects more than just researchers—it impacts society: When research is silenced, it’s not just scientific freedom that is violated—the public is also denied its right to know the truth. In his words: "Science should be an uncomfortable space, ready to challenge dominant narratives—not a complacent institution that bows to the pressures of power."
Every Episode of Scientific Censorship Is a Warning Sign
Charles’s case is just one example of a much deeper problem: editorial malpractice. This widespread and recurring trend exposes the cracks in a system that is supposedly designed to uphold scientific integrity.
This is not an isolated incident or anomaly—it is the symptom of a systemic problem with no easy solutions.
“Other researchers in the same field have faced similar experiences, and the same happens in other controversial topics,” Charles states, acknowledging a reality that has become the norm rather than the exception.
The danger of this phenomenon lies in the arbitrariness with which the concept of conflict of interest is applied—turning it into a tool to justify rejections without the need for solid scientific arguments.
The impact is devastating: trust in the scientific publishing system, already eroded by external interests' influence, weakens even further.
Charles reveals that what is most alarming is that in tobacco harm reduction research, censorship does not stem from direct economic pressure by an industry with apparent commercial interests. Instead, it is enforced by the rigid defense of a narrative imposed by a global technocratic elite.
In this environment, any challenge is seen as a threat that must be neutralized. This network of power, fueled by a combination of public funds and private fortunes with well-defined agendas, does not seek to foster scientific innovation—it exists to protect institutional interests and uphold reputations built over decades.
However, the most urgent issue is not just reforming editorial structures but creating a genuine cultural shift. Science cannot continue to function as a game of interests, where the visibility or suppression of research depends on who stands to benefit or be harmed by its conclusions.
In a system like this, impartiality ceases to be a universal principle and is instead applied selectively—not based on methodological rigor but on the political implications of the results.
Suppose the concept of conflict of interest continues to be weaponized to silence certain voices while amplifying others. In that case, science will no longer be the objective pursuit of truth it claims to be. Instead, it will become a fertile ground for manipulation, where external influences dictate what gets published and remains buried.
Every censored study represents more than just a personal setback for a researcher—it is a lost opportunity to develop more effective public health policies and to mitigate the real harms of smoking. Censorship in this field does not just hinder scientific progress—it prolongs the suffering of millions who could benefit from better-informed harm-reduction strategies.
The real issue is not just the injustice done to a single scientist. Suppressing research deprives society of its right to the truth. And when science becomes politicized, the greatest casualty is not just academic freedom—it is truth itself.
Charles’s case is a stark reminder that science—to fulfill its purpose—must be willing to provoke discomfort and challenge entrenched interests, whether political, ideological, or economic, that seek to shape its outcomes.
This makes it urgent to build and defend a genuinely open and impartial scientific publishing ecosystem that prioritizes rigor, data integrity, and methodological soundness over convenience or ideological alignment.
The credibility of science depends on a system that values evidence above all else and ensures that truth—no matter how uncomfortable—prevails.
When Science Meets Power: Censorship, Conflicts, and Silenced Truths
The rejection of Charles and Roger’s article is not an isolated event. Countless innovative and disruptive ideas have been discarded or silenced for challenging dominant narratives.
History offers multiple examples: Alfred Wegener’s theory of continental drift, rejected for decades, reminds us how revolutionary ideas can be marginalized by institutional biases.
However, unlike historical cases where corporate power openly distorted scientific knowledge, research on tobacco harm reduction faces a more subtle obstacle.
Censorship Under a Different Name: Rejecting scientific articles under vague pretexts like "lack of interest" or "editorial misalignment" has, in many cases, become a veiled form of censorship.
This practice is used not only to suppress research that challenges the status quo,
But also to favor authors with greater institutional prestige or influence,
Perpetuating academic hierarchies and limiting the evolution of new scientific approaches.
Beyond technical challenges, the influence of political and ideological factors is evident in how particular articles are accepted or rejected.
Studies that challenge existing consensus on controversial topics—such as climate change, the effects of ultra-processed foods, or reduced-risk nicotine products—are often dismissed without valid methodological reasons.
Fraud in Peer Review: The Other Side of the Crisis
In recent years, peer review, once considered the cornerstone of scientific integrity, has faced growing scrutiny. Cases of fraud, manipulation, and editorial misconduct have led to the retraction of hundreds of articles. Independent investigations have uncovered schemes where companies or individuals pay to manipulate the editorial process, securing favorable publications or eliminating critical voices.
A System Ripe for Abuse
A recent case, documented by Retraction Watch, revealed the retraction of three publications after discovering manipulation in the peer review process. These incidents expose the systemic flaws of a mechanism that, instead of ensuring scientific rigor, has fueled bureaucratization and unfair competition among researchers.
Additionally, studies like those by Als-Nielsen et al. have demonstrated that reviewers with financial ties to corporations are more likely to favor sponsored interventions. This disturbing pattern highlights a deeper issue: Economic interests influence not only research funding but also the validation and dissemination of scientific findings.