Open Science Practices in Gambling Research Publications (2016-2019): A Scoping Review
- PMID: 35678905
- PMCID: PMC9178323
- DOI: 10.1007/s10899-022-10120-y
Open Science Practices in Gambling Research Publications (2016-2019): A Scoping Review
Abstract
The replication crisis has stimulated researchers around the world to adopt open science research practices intended to reduce publication bias and improve research quality. Open science practices include study pre-registration, open data, open access, and avoiding methods that can lead to publication bias and low replication rates. Although gambling studies uses similar research methods as behavioral research fields that have struggled with replication, we know little about the uptake of open science research practices in gambling-focused research. We conducted a scoping review of 500 recent (1/1/2016-12/1/2019) studies focused on gambling and problem gambling to examine the use of open science and transparent research practices. Our results showed that a small percentage of studies used most practices: whereas 54.6% (95% CI: [50.2, 58.9]) of studies used at least one of nine open science practices, each practice's prevalence was: 1.6% for pre-registration (95% CI: [0.8, 3.1]), 3.2% for open data (95% CI: [2.0, 5.1]), 0% for open notebook, 35.2% for open access (95% CI: [31.1, 39.5]), 7.8% for open materials (95% CI: [5.8, 10.5]), 1.4% for open code (95% CI: [0.7, 2.9]), and 15.0% for preprint posting (95% CI: [12.1, 18.4]). In all, 6.4% (95% CI: [4.6, 8.9]) of the studies included a power analysis and 2.4% (95% CI: [1.4, 4.2]) were replication studies. Exploratory analyses showed that studies that used any open science practice, and open access in particular, had higher citation counts. We suggest several practical ways to enhance the uptake of open science principles and practices both within gambling studies and in science more generally.
Keywords: Gambling; Gambling disorder; Open science practices; Pre-registration; Problem gambling; Scoping review.
© 2022. The Author(s).
Conflict of interest statement
When this article was published, the Division on Addiction (Division) was receiving funding from DraftKings, Inc., a sports betting and gaming company; Entain PLC (formally GVC Holdings PLC), a sports betting and gambling company; EPIC Risk Management; Foundation for Advancing Alcohol Responsibility, a not-for-profit organization founded and funded by a group of distillers; Massachusetts Department of Public Health, Office of Problem Gambling Services via Health Resources in Action; MGM Resorts International via the University of Nevada, Las Vegas; National Institutes of Health (National Institute of General Medical Sciences and National Institute on Drug Abuse) via The Healing Lodge of the Seven Nations; and Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration via the Addiction Treatment Center of New England. During the past five years, the Division on Addiction has also received funding from David H. Bor Library Fund, Cambridge Health Alliance; Fenway Community Health Center, Inc.; Greater Boston Council on Alcoholism; Integrated Centre on Addiction Prevention and Treatment of the Tung Wah Group of Hospitals, Hong Kong; Massachusetts Department of Public Health, Bureau of Substance Addiction Services; Massachusetts Department of Public Health, Bureau of Substance Addiction Services via St. Francis House; the Massachusetts Gaming Commission, Commonwealth of Massachusetts; and Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration via the Gavin Foundation. During the past five years, the UNLV International Gaming Institute (IGI) has received research funding from MGM Resorts International, Wynn Resorts Ltd, Las Vegas Sands Corporation, Caesars Entertainment Corporation, Ainsworth Game Technology, Sightline Payments, Global Payments, U.S.-Japan Business Council, State of Nevada, Knowledge Fund, and State of Nevada Department of Health and Human Services. IGI runs the triennial research-focused International Conference on Gambling and Risk Taking, whose sponsors include industry, academic, and legal/regulatory stakeholders in gambling. A full list of sponsors for the most recent conference can be found at
Figures
References
-
- Adewumi MT, Vo N, Tritz D, Beaman J, Vassar M. An evaluation of the practice of transparency and reproducibility in addiction medicine literature. Addictive Behaviors. 2021;112:106560. - PubMed
-
- Aguinis H, Banks GC, Rogelberg SG, Cascio WF. Actionable recommendations for narrowing the science-practice gap in open science. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 2020;158:27–35.
-
- Anderson S, Kelley K, Maxwell S. Sample-size planning for more accurate statistical power: A method adjusting sample effect sizes for publication bias. Psychological Science. 2017;28(11):1547–1562. - PubMed
-
- Basson I, Blanckenberg JP, Prozesky H. Do open access journal articles experience a citation advantage? Results and methodological reflections of an application of multiple measures to an analysis by WoS subject areas. Scientometrics. 2021;126(1):459–484.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
