International Gambling Studies: proposed changes to publication policy

The primary purpose of research, whether in the field of humanities, arts, biology, physics or medicine, is to endeavour to advance scientific knowledge that furthers our understanding of our natural and social environment. Good science informs and influences practices, improves processes and interventions, enhances clinical outcomes, and shapes policy-decisions These aims are achieved through the timely dissemination of valid and reliable information derived from methodologically rigorous research methodologies and conclusions founded on the accurate and objective interpretation of data. Although research findings are communicated through a number of different media, for example, conference presentations, reference/technical books, reports, and newspaper/magazine articles, it remains true to state that articles published in peer-reviewed journals represent the accepted standard by which the majority if not all scientific research is evaluated. Scientific articles gain their credentials and credibility by virtue of their manuscripts being assessed and published in a peer-reviewed journal. Rightly or wrongly, the higher the impact factor of the journal (tiered rankings), the greater the manuscript's perceived standing – but not necessarily its validity.

Setting aside the debate as to its reliability and effectiveness, the peer-review process utilized by academic journals is designed to ensure that manuscripts submitted for publication are characterized by: acceptable levels of academic scholarship; an adequate rationale justifying the need for the research, the presence of a fair and non-selective review of the literature; methodologies and designs that are appropriate; relevant statistical analyses; and the interpretation of results that do not exceed the data obtained. Recognizing that the review process does not necessarily mean that findings are valid, the process does contribute significantly to minimizing the potential for critical errors to permeate the literature. The process involves allocating manuscripts to a number of acknowledged experts who have the requisite knowledge and skills to evaluate its quality, understand the issues, identify errors, omissions or biases, and critically assess methodologies. These experts have an obligation to assess all aspects of the manuscript in an impartial manner within a specified timeframe that allows rapid feedback to authors.

In this context, journal editors are motivated to accept and publish manuscripts that report innovative and original findings that have not been published previously. Currently, the vast majority of journals within the field of science require authors to confirm that the manuscript is submitted solely to the journal, is not in press, has not been previously published and is not submitted elsewhere. The present policy adopted by International Gambling Studies follows suit.

There are several reasons for this requirement. First, there is the self-serving but nevertheless important consideration of editors wanting to ensure that their journal is identified as the flagship publication that reports important new, innovative and exciting findings. Similar to the situation confronted with newspaper editors, there is little merit or advantage in publishing material that has already been published elsewhere even if it is of high quality substance. The adage, there is no news in old news applies. The editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, Franz Ingelfinger, unashamedly acknowledged this factor as far back as the late 1960s (cited by Relman, 1981). In general, it is the original publication that attracts citations and hence enhances the journal's impact factor and status as a top-tiered journal.

Another second reason for not accepting manuscripts published elsewhere is to reduce the number of redundant publications, that is, those are simply describing the same data set albeit with varying perspectives or introductions. Although this may lead to the construction of superficially impressive publication vitae for emerging researchers, such practices fail miserably to add any value to the existing body of scientific evidence. On the contrary, they serve to add unnecessary duplication of material not to mention imposing a burden on reviewers. Reviewers, it must re-emphasized, voluntarily contribute their time and effort in assessing manuscripts, often a time-consuming activity that ultimately benefits authors by resulting in constructive feedback that improves the overall quality of the finished product.

To date, the Editorial Board has effectively, or at least to the best of its abilities, implemented this policy regardless of the topic or quality of the submitted manuscript. However, a number of recent inter-related developments linked to technological advances and the nature of funding sources for gambling research have given the Editorial Board grounds to pause and review the situation. Is there an argument justifying the need to reconsider changes to this policy to provide greater flexibility in accepting certain material that has been published through other media?

What are these developmental factors as applicable to gambling research? In the first instance, the Internet now provides a forum through which material can be disseminated rapidly to both members of the scientific community and the general public. This in itself is not the issue. However, what is becoming increasingly apparent is that governments and their related funding agencies, and the gambling industry provide several types of financial support for gambling research projects; namely competitive grants and commissioned/tendered projects.

In the most common approach, governments allocate a quantum of money for competitive research grants. The National Health and Medical Research Council, National Institute of Health and Australian Research Council are examples of competitive grant schemes. Priority may be given to certain issues or themes but the stipulated condition and expectation of these grants is such that findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals. There is no requirement to provide a formal report to the funding agency. Accordingly, under this model, researchers are free to submit manuscripts to journals indicating that the material has not been published elsewhere.

In the second approach, governments and gambling industry operators may call for tenders in response to a call for research to address specific topics; these mainly relate to policy decision-making or influencing policy decisions. Examples of these include but are not limited to Gambling Research Australia, Ontario Problem Gambling Research Centre, the UK Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the Institute for Research on Pathological Gambling, and ad hoc groups temporarily constituted for special projects such as the 2000/2001 Gaming Industry Operators group in Australia.

Researchers successful in obtaining grants under this approach have increasingly found themselves in a bind with respect to publications in peer-reviewed journals and the dissemination of research to a wider audience. In several instances (the proportion remains unknown) the condition of the grant requires the researcher to submit a formal report to the funding body prior to submission elsewhere, and the requirement to submit manuscripts based on the funded research to peer-reviewed journals after the submitted report has been accepted by the agency and the full report published on its website. Not surprisingly, the funding body is motivated by the desire to be credited with being the first to publish findings. This, however, places the researcher in an unenviable position where the research findings cannot be rewritten in condensed form and submitted to a journal since the data and findings have already been published. For all intents and purposes, placing written material on the web is equivalent to publication.

The main disadvantage to academics is that they cannot classify reports as peer reviewed publications for purposes of promotion or tenure. The more significant issue is that important research findings contained in such reports are (1) not subjected to transparent independent peer-review processes that are comparable to those applied in scientific journals, (2) may not be exposed to any peer review process, (3) may be made available on websites which potentially interested individuals may not be aware of, or regularly visit, and (4) may not be listed in search data-bases such as PsycINFO or Ovid Medline. Thus the potential for these reports to be neglected remains high, and their standing as scientifically valid documents, remaining low.

The Editorial Board of International Gambling Studies is in the process of revising the stance on accepting manuscripts for consideration that contain material published in government and other funded reports, for the following reasons. Submitting funded reports to independent peer review strengthens the confidence in which reported findings can be accepted as methodologically valid or not, and contributes to the dissemination of important research findings to a much wider audience across international jurisdictions. In so doing, researchers will gain access to studies through library databases that they otherwise would not necessarily or easily locate. In addition, it fosters the archiving of research findings within scientific journals over time. The risk with government posted reports is that their self-life on the web is often limited or relegated to archived directories that are not readily accessed.

The same policy changes may apply to key articles published in foreign journals. It should be borne in mind that English language journals have a bias toward research conducted in North America, the UK, Australia and New Zealand. Groups in Asia and Europe are also conducting significant research but their findings are restricted to publication in foreign language journals. An international journal like International Gambling Studies ought to consider encouraging researchers in foreign countries to submit their work and bring it to the attention of their English-speaking colleagues.

The spirit of the proposed revision of this policy is not intended to promote the wholesale submission of unmodified manuscripts derived from the original report, or the general acceptance of manuscripts based on reports for allocation to peer-review and consideration for publication. Rather, the intent is to ensure that manuscripts are formatted in the appropriate style and content appropriate to International Gambling Studies, report additional data/statistical analyses, and offer different perspectives. Additional requirements are the statement that the findings of the study have been published with proper referencing to that report and website, and confirmation that copyright permission has been obtained from the funding agency.

Does this shift in policy have the potential to reduce the quality and standing of International Gambling Studies? Is their value to be derived for the readers of the journal? The expectation is that it will lead to a greater flexibility in editorial decision-making resulting in a more effective dissemination of gambling research findings to a wider international audience.