Integrating open science practices into recommendations for accepting gambling industry research funding

References

• Adams PJ. 2007. Assessing whether to receive funding support from tobacco, alcohol, gambling and other dangerous consumption industries. Addiction. 102(7):1027–1033.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Adams PJ. 2011. Ways in which gambling researchers receive funding from gambling industry sources. Int Gambl Stud. 11(2):145–152.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anvari F, Lakens D. 2018. The replicability crisis and public trust in psychological science. Comprehens Res Soc Psychol. 3(3):266–286.
   Google Scholar
• Atkinson RD. 2018. Industry funding of university research: which states lead? [accessed 2020 May 11]. http://www2.itif.org/2018-industry-funding-university-research.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Basken P. 2016. A year after a climate-change controversy, smithsonian and journals still seek balance on disclosure rules. The Chronicle of Higher Education; [accessed 2020 May 11]. https://www.chronicle.com/article/A-Year-After-a-Climate-Change/235838.
   Google Scholar
• Blaszczynski A, Gainsbury S. 2014. Editor’s notes. Int Gambl Stud. 14(3):354–356.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blaszczynski A, Gainsbury S. 2019. Editor’s note: replication crisis in the social sciences. Int Gambl Stud. 19(3):359–361.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boccia S, Rothman KJ, Panic N, Flacco ME, Rosso A, Pastorino R, Manzoli L, La Vecchia C, Villari P, Boffetta P. 2016. Registration practices for observational studies on ClinicalTrials.gov indicated low adherence. J Clin Epidemiol. 70:176–182.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bozeman B, Gaughan M. 2007. Impacts of grants and contracts on academic researchers’ interactions with industry. Res Policy. 36(5):694–707.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Björk B. 2017. Open access to scientific articles: a review of benefits and challenges. Intern Emerg Med. 12(2):247–253.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Camerer CF, Dreber A, Forsell E, Ho T-H, Huber J, Johannesson M, Kirchler M, Almenberg J, Altmejd A, Chan T. 2016. Evaluating replicability of laboratory experiments in economics. Science. 351(6280):1433–1436.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Camerer CF, Dreber A, Holzmeister F, Ho T-H, Huber J, Johannesson M, Kirchler M, Nave G, Nosek BA, Pfeiffer T. 2018. Evaluating the Replicability of Social Science Experiments in Nature and Science Between 2010 and 2015. Nat Hum Behav. 2(9):637–644.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cassidy R. 2014. Fair game? Producing and publishing gambling research. Int Gambl Stud. 14(3):345–353.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cassidy R, Markham F. 2018. The Auckland Code: a code of ethics for gambling researchers. Derived from the International Think Tank on Research, Policy, and Practice, Banff, Canada 2017.
   Google Scholar
• Catford J. 2012. Battling big booze and big bet: Why we should not accept direct funding from the alcohol or gambling industries. Health Promot Int. 27(3):307–310.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chartres N, Fabbri A, Bero LA. 2016. Association of industry sponsorship with outcomes of nutrition studies: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Intern Med. 176(12):1769–1777.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Claesen A, Gomes S, Tuerlinckx F, Vanpaemel W, Leuven KU. 2019. Preregistration: comparing dream to reality. [accessed 2020 May 11].
   Google Scholar
• Coiera E, Ammenwerth E, Georgiou A, Magrabi F. 2018. Does health informatics have a replication crisis? J Am Med Inform Assoc. 25(8):963–968.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Collins P, Shaffer HJ, Ladouceur R, Blaszszynski A, Fong D. 2019. Gambling research and industry funding. J Gambl Stud. 35(3):875–886.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cowlishaw S, Thomas SL. 2018. Industry interests in gambling research: lessons learned from other forms of hazardous consumption. Addict Behav. 78:101–106.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cumming G. 2014. The new statistics: Why and how. Psychol Sci. 25(1):7–29.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fainaru-Wada M, Fainaru S. 2017. NFL-NIH research partnership set to end with $16M unspent. [accessed 2020 May 11]. http://www.espn.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/20175509/nfl-donation-brain-research-falls-apart-nih-appears-set-move-bulk-30-million-donation.
   Google Scholar
• Gewin V. 2016. Data sharing: an open mind on open data. Nature. 529(7584):117–119.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goldacre B. 2014. Bad Pharma: How drug companies mislead doctors and harm patients. New York (NY): Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Griffiths MD, Auer M. 2015. Research funding in gambling studies: some further observations. Int Gambl Stud. 15(1):15–19.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hancock L, Smith G. 2017. Critiquing the Reno Model I–IV international influence on regulators and governments (2004–2015)— the distorted reality of “responsible gambling. Int J Ment Health Addiction. 15(6):1151–1176.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heirene R. In press. A call for replications of addiction research: which studies should we replicate and what constitutes a ‘successful’ replication? Addict Res Theory. DOI:10.1080/16066359.2020.1751130
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Houghton JW. 2009. Open access: What are the economic benefits? A Comparison of the United Kingdom, Netherlands and Denmark. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.149257
   Google Scholar
• Hutson M. 2018. Artificial intelligence faces reproducibility crisis. Science. 359(6377):725–729.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ioannidis JP. 2005. Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med. 2(8):e124.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johns D, Oppenheimer G. 2018. Response-the sugar industry’s influence on policy. Science. 360(6388):501–502.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kearns CE, Schmidt LA, Glantz SA. 2016. Sugar industry and coronary heart disease research: a historical analysis of internal industry documents. JAMA Intern Med. 176(11):1680–1685.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kerr NL. 1998. HARKing: hypothesizing after the results are known. Pers Soc Psychol Rev. 2(3):196–217.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kim HS, Dobson KS, Hodgins DC. 2016. Funding of gambling research: ethical issues, potential benefit and guidelines. J Gambl Stud. 32(32):111–132.
   Google Scholar
• LaBrie RA, LaPlante DA, Nelson SE, Schumann A, Shaffer HJ. 2007. Assessing the playing field: a prospective longitudinal study of internet sports gambling behavior. J Gambl Stud. 23(3):347–362.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ladouceur R, Blaszczynski A, Shaffer HJ, Fong D. 2016. Extending the Reno model: responsible gambling evaluation guidelines for gambling operators, public policymakers, and regulators. Gaming Law Rev Econ. 20(7):580–586.
   Google Scholar
• Ladouceur R, Shaffer P, Blaszczynski A, Shaffer HJ. 2019. Responsible gambling research and industry funding biases. J Gambl Stud. 35(2):725–730.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lakens D. 2019. The value of preregistration for psychological science: a conceptual analysis. [accessed 2020 May 11].
   Google Scholar
• Lambert M. 2007. The misuse of science. S Afr j Sports Med. 19(1):2–2.
   Google Scholar
• LaPlante DA. 2019. Replication is fundamental, but is it common? A call for scientific self-reflection and contemporary research practices in gambling-related research. Int Gambl Stud. 19(3):362–368.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• LaPlante DA, Gray HM, Nelson SE. 2019. Should we do away with responsible gambling? In: Shaffer HJ, Blaszczynski A, Ladouceur R, Collins P, Fong D, editors. Responsible gambling: primary stakeholder perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press; p. 35–57.
   Google Scholar
• Livingstone C, Adams PJ. 2016. Clear principles are needed for integrity in gambling research. Addiction. 111(1):5–10.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mayo DG. 2018. Statistical inference as severe testing: How to get beyond the statistics wars. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mervis J. 2017. Data check: U.S. government share of basic research funding falls below 50%. Science. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/03/data-check-us-government-share-basic-research-funding-falls-below-50.
   Google Scholar
• Munafò MR, Nosek BA, Bishop DVM, Button KS, Chambers CD, Percie Du Sert N, Simonsohn U, Wagenmakers E-J, Ware JJ, Ioannidis JPA. 2017. A manifesto for reproducible science. Nat Hum Behav. 1(1):1–9.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nelson SE, Edson TC, Singh P, Tom M, Martin RJ, LaPlante DA, Gray HM, Shaffer HJ. 2019. Patterns of daily fantasy sport play: tackling the issues. J Gambl Stud. 35(1):181–204.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nosek BA, Alter G, Banks GC, Borsboom D, Bowman SD, Breckler SJ, Buck S, Chambers CD, Chin G, Christensen G, et al. 2015. Scientific Standards. Promoting an open research culture. Science. 348(6242):1422–1425.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nosek BA, Ebersole CR, DeHaven AC, Mellor DT. 2018. The preregistration revolution. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 115(11):2600–2606.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nuijten MB, Hartgerink CH, van Assen MA, Epskamp S, Wicherts JM. 2016. The prevalence of statistical reporting errors in psychology (1985–2013). Behav Res Methods. 48(4):1205–1226.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Open Science Collaboration. 2015. Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science. 349(6251):aac4716.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Orford J. 2017. The gambling establishment and the exercise of power: a commentary on Hancock and Smith. Int J Ment Health Addict. 15(6):1193–1196.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perkmann M, Tartari V, McKelvey M, Autio E, Broström A, D’Este P, Fini R, Geuna A, Grimaldi R, Hughes A. 2013. Academic engagement and commercialisation: a review of the literature on university–industry relations. Research Policy. 42(2):423–442.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reilly C. 2019. Responsible gambling: organizational perspective. In Shaffer HJ, Blaszczynski A, Ladouceur R, Collins R, FongD, editors. Responsible gambling: primary stakeholder perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press; p. 211–219.
   Google Scholar
• Scheel AM, Schijen M, Lakens D. 2020. An excess of positive results: Comparing the standard Psychology literature with Registered Reports. [accessed 2020 May 11]. https://psyarxiv.com/p6e9c.
   Google Scholar
• Schüll ND. 2012. Addiction by design: machine gambling in Las Vegas. Princeton (NJ): Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Shaffer PM, Ladouceur R, Williams PM, Wiley RC, Blaszczynski A, Shaffer HJ. 2019. Gambling research and funding biases. J Gambl Stud. 35(3):875–886.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shaffer HJ, LaPlante DA, Chao YE, Planzer S, LaBrie RA, Nelson SE. 2009. Division on addictions creates new data repository. World Online Gambling Law Report. http://www.thetransparencyproject.org/publications/World_Online_Gambling_Law_Report_Volume_8_Issue_3_March_2009.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Silberzahn R, Uhlmann EL, Martin DP, Anselmi P, Aust F, Awtrey E, Bahník Š, Bai F, Bannard C, Bonnier E, et al. 2018. Many analysts, one data set: making transparent how variations in analytic choices affect results. Adv Meth Prac Psycho Sci. 1(3):337–356.
   Google Scholar
• Simmons JP, Nelson ID, Simonsohn U. 2011. False-positive psychology: undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychol Sci. 22(11):1359–1366.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simonsohn U, Nelson LD, Simmons JP. 2014. p-curve and effect size: correcting for publication bias using only significant results. Perspect Psychol Sci. 9(6):666–681.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Sismondo S. 2008. How pharmaceutical industry funding affects trial outcomes: causal structures and responses. Soc Sci Med. 66(9):1909–1914.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tong EK, Glantz SA. 2007. Tobacco industry efforts undermining evidence linking secondhand smoke with cardiovascular disease. Circulation. 116(16):1845–1854.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Veldkamp CLS, Bakker M, van Assen MALM, Crompvoets EAV, Ong HH, Soderberg CK, Wicherts JM. 2017. Restriction of opportunistic use of researcher degrees of freedom in pre‐registrations on the Open Science Framework. [accessed 2020 May 11]. https://psyarxiv.com/g8cjq.
   Google Scholar
• Wagenmakers EJ, Wetzels R, Borsboom D, van der Maas HL, Kievit RA. 2012. An agenda for purely confirmatory research. Perspect Psychol Sci. 7(6):632–638.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wicherts JM, Veldkamp CL, Augusteijn HE, Bakker M, Van Aert R, Van Assen MA. 2016. Degrees of freedom in planning, running, analyzing, and reporting psychological studies: a checklist to avoid p-hacking. Front Psychol. 7:1832.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wohl MJA, Davis CG, Hollingshead SJ. 2017. How much have you won or lost? Personalized behavioral feedback about gambling expenditures regulates play. Comput Hum Behav. 70:437–445.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wohl MJ, Wood RT. 2015. Is gambling industry-funded research necessarily a conflict of interest? A reply to Cassidy (2014). Int Gambl Stud. 15(1):12–14.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wohl MJ, Tabri N, Zelenski JM. 2019. The need for open science practices and well-conducted replications in the field of gambling studies. Int Gambl Stud. 19(3):369–376.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wohl MJ, Christie KL, Matheson K, Anisman H. 2010. Animation-based education as a gambling prevention tool: correcting erroneous cognitions and reducing the frequency of exceeding limits among slots players. J Gambl Stud. 26(3):469–486.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wright BD, Drivas K, Lei Z, Merrill SA. 2014. Technology transfer: industry-funded academic inventions boost innovation. Nature. 507(7492):297–299.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yamada Y. 2018. How to crack pre-registration: toward transparent and open science. Front Psychol. 9:1831.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yamashita T, Brown JS. 2017. Does cohort matter in the association between education, health literacy and health in the USA? Health Promot Int. 32(1):16–24.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar