Aim: To assess the extent to which alcohol industry actors cited evidence in submissions to the Scottish Parliament Health and Sport Committee’s 2011 call for written evidence on the Alcohol (Minimum Pricing) (Scotland) Bill and to compare any citations of peer-reviewed evidence to original sources. Methods: All submissions to the consultation (n=128) were manually searched to identify those written by alcohol industry actors (n=25). The reference lists of all the alcohol industry submissions were reviewed and peer-reviewed sources were retrieved, read and assessed against their in-text citation within the alcohol industry submissions. Results: Although most industry submissions cited evidence of some sort, only 7 (28%) cited peer-reviewed evidence. Comparing the total number of citations to peer-reviewed evidence (n=17) to original sources demonstrates that 82% were questionably cited. Conclusion: Our findings demonstrate that the majority of references to peer-reviewed evidence in this sample of alcohol industry policy submissions were misleading with examples of citations being presented as supportive of arguments that the original evidence source specifically argued against. This suggests that even the depiction of peer-reviewed evidence within alcohol industry policy submissions needs to be treated with caution.

中文翻译：

---

“半切”科学：对酒精行业参与者在最低单位定价政策提交中使用同行评审证据的定性检查

目标：评估酒精行业参与者在提交给苏格兰议会健康和体育委员会 2011 年关于酒精（最低定价）（苏格兰）法案的书面证据呼吁中引用证据的程度，并将同行评审证据的任何引用与原始来源。方法：手动搜索所有提交咨询的意见书 (n=128)，以识别酒精行业参与者 (n=25) 所写的内容。审查了所有酒精行业提交的参考清单，并根据酒精行业提交中的文本引用检索、阅读和评估了同行评审的来源。结果：尽管大多数行业提交的文件都引用了某种证据，但只有 7 个 (28%) 引用了同行评审的证据。将经过同行评审的证据（n=17）与原始来源的引用总数进行比较，表明 82% 的引用有问题。结论：我们的研究结果表明，在此酒精行业政策提交样本中，大多数对同行评审证据的引用都具有误导性，引用的例子是作为支持原始证据来源明确反对的论点的例子。这表明，即使是在酒精行业政策提交中对同行评审证据的描述也需要谨慎对待。我们的研究结果表明，在此酒精行业政策提交样本中，大多数对同行评审证据的引用都具有误导性，引用的例子是作为支持原始证据来源明确反对的论点的例子。这表明，即使是在酒精行业政策提交中对同行评审证据的描述也需要谨慎对待。我们的研究结果表明，在此酒精行业政策提交样本中，大多数对同行评审证据的引用都具有误导性，引用的例子是作为支持原始证据来源明确反对的论点的例子。这表明，即使是在酒精行业政策提交中对同行评审证据的描述也需要谨慎对待。