International Gambling Studies 投稿经验-刊鹿论文编译

The need for open science practices and well-conducted replications in the field of gambling studies

Abstract:

A field of study is only as strong as the research it produces. Although catchy and surprising results may generate acclaim, the research has actual value to the extent that the findings are true – they must be replicable (Popper, 1959; Schmidt, 2009). In the field of gambling studies, the scientific merit of published research has added importance given its ability to influence the regulation of gambling as well as efforts to prevent and treat disordered gambling. Unfortunately, there is reason to believe that many fields in the social sciences have a weak rate of replicability (Camerer et al., 2016, 2018; Open Science Collaboration, 2015), a revelation that has led to the so-called ‘replication crisis’ or ‘credibility revolution’. As a result of this crisis, attention has been directed at why many published findings fail to replicate. Central to these discussions has been: 1) low statistical power – the probability that a study will reject the null hypothesis (H0) when a specific alternative hypothesis (H1) is true – in published empirical research, and 2) the lack of open science practices (e.g. being explicit about how p-value(s) were obtained, posting data and materials to an online public repository). Low statistical power and the lack of open science practices decrease the replicability and credibility of reported findings. The net result has been decreased confidence in the results of published research and reforms aimed at improving new reports’ credibility. Regrettably, the field of gambling studies has lagged behind other fields in recognizing this replication crisis and taking appropriate action. To our knowledge, as of 2019, not a single session of any academic gambling-oriented conference has been dedicated to the replication crisis, and not a single paper (until this issue of International Gambling Studies) has been published on the relevance of the replication crisis for the field of gambling studies. A positive sign is InternationalGambling Studies’move toward encouraging contributors to fully disclose their research practices (i.e. open science). We laud the Journal for this change. We also laud International Gambling Studies for opening its pages to replication-based reports. This is a much needed change – a change that will help all stakeholders (e.g. researchers, policymakers, industry-related professionals) assess the replicability of past work in gambling studies. That said, we caution stakeholders that not all replications are created equal. It is important that all interested parties come to understand what constitutes a convincing replication, and why there is a need for a credibility revolution. In the current commentary, we discuss why, regardless of journal mandates, it is imperative that contributors and reviewers consider a priori statistical power analyses, effect sizes, and ensure open disclosures about research practices. Sound research practices are essential to the vitality, credibility, and replicability of any field of research. However, a deep dive into all the aforementioned issues is beyond the scope of the current commentary; our commentary has two goals. First, we hope to initiate a conversation that focuses researchers’ attention on the replicability of previously published research in the field of gambling studies. Second, we want to shine a light on how (as a field) we can do better to INTERNATIONAL GAMBLING STUDIES 2019, VOL. 19, NO. 3, 369–376 https://doi.org/10.1080/14459795.2019.1672769

Author Listing： Michael J. A. Wohl;Nassim Tabri;John M. Zelenski

Volume： 19

Pages： 369 - 376

DOI： 10.1080/14459795.2019.1672769

Language： English

Journal： International Gambling Studies

International Gambling Studies

INT GAMBL STUD

影响因子：1.8

是否综述期刊：否

是否OA：否

是否预警：不在预警名单内

发行时间：-

ISSN：1445-9795

发刊频率：-

收录数据库：Scopus收录

出版国家/地区：-

出版社：Taylor & Francis

期刊介绍

年发文量	16
国人发稿量	2
国人发文占比	11.11%
自引率	8.0%
平均录取率	-
平均审稿周期	-
版面费	-
偏重研究方向	SUBSTANCE ABUSE-
期刊官网	https://www.tandfonline.com/toc/rigs20/current
投稿链接	-

质量指标占比

研究类文章占比	OA被引用占比	撤稿占比	出版后修正文章占比
85.19%	26.88%	0.00%	2.27%

预警情况查看说明

时间	预警情况
2024年02月发布的2024版	不在预警名单中
2023年01月发布的2023版	不在预警名单中
2021年12月发布的2021版	不在预警名单中
2020年12月发布的2020版	不在预警名单中

JCR分区 WOS分区等级：Q3区

版本	按学科	分区
WOS期刊SCI分区 WOS期刊SCI分区是指SCI官方（Web of Science）为每个学科内的期刊按照IF数值排序，将期刊按照四等分的方法划分的Q1-Q4等级，Q1代表质量最高，即常说的1区期刊。（2021-2022年最新版）
	SUBSTANCE ABUSE	Q2

关于2019年中科院分区升级版（试行）

分区表升级版（试行）旨在解决期刊学科体系划分与学科发展以及融合趋势的不相容问题。由于学科交叉在当代科研活动的趋势愈发显著，学科体系构建容易引发争议。为了打破学科体系给期刊评价带来的桎梏，“升级版方案”首先构建了论文层级的主题体系，然后分别计算每篇论文在所属主题的影响力，最后汇总各期刊每篇论文分值，得到“期刊超越指数”，作为分区依据。

分区表升级版（试行）的优势：一是论文层级的主题体系既能体现学科交叉特点，又可以精准揭示期刊载文的多学科性；二是采用“期刊超越指数”替代影响因子指标，解决了影响因子数学性质缺陷对评价结果的干扰。整体而言，分区表升级版（试行）突破了期刊评价中学科体系构建、评价指标选择等瓶颈问题，能够更为全面地揭示学术期刊的影响力，为科研评价“去四唯”提供解决思路。相关研究成果经过国际同行的认可，已经发表在科学计量学领域国际重要期刊。

《2019年中国科学院文献情报中心期刊分区表升级版（试行）》首次将社会科学引文数据库（SSCI）期刊纳入到分区评估中。升级版分区表（试行）设置了包括自然科学和社会科学在内的18个大类学科。基础版和升级版（试行）将过渡共存三年时间，推测在此期间各大高校和科研院所仍可能会以基础版为考核参考标准。提示：中科院分区官方微信公众号“fenqubiao”仅提供基础版数据查询，暂无升级版数据，请注意区分。

中科院分区查看说明

版本	大类学科	小类学科	Top期刊	综述期刊
	心理学 4区	SUBSTANCE ABUSE 药物滥用 4区	否	否
2021年12月升级版	心理学 4区	SUBSTANCE ABUSE 药物滥用 4区	否	否
2020年12月旧的升级版	心理学 4区	SUBSTANCE ABUSE 药物滥用 4区	否	否
2022年12月最新升级版	心理学 3区	SUBSTANCE ABUSE 药物滥用 3区	否	否