Submissions

Research reports

The journal welcomes submissions based on empirical research that will be evaluated with respect to the contribution in terms of the significance of contribution, methodological rigour, and ability to communicate effectively. All empirical research is appropriate so long as it demonstrably falls within the scope of the journal. We particularly welcome and prioritise empirical work that has the potential to impact policy and practice, but this is not an inherent requirement.

Replications and refinements are appropriate submission types, where they are identified as such, and serve a clearly defined purpose and respond to a need in the literature.

Policy Analysis

We will consider submissions that, among other possibilities;

make a principled case for policy or policy change associated with gambling harms;

formally document and analyse existing policies and their impact (whether at a local government level or with respect to national policy etc);

analyse and integrate across different policies in a principled and informed way (eg demonstrating the ability to credibly and systematically compare different policies in different countries);

establish mechanisms for the audit and evaluation of policy.

Submissions in the policy section may include either quantitative or qualitative analysis, or both.

Practitioner Reports

We will consider submissions that, among other possibilities;

provide a systematic and appropriate analysis of practices that relate to the existence and experience of gambling harms;

consider how systems and governance affect the protection from and recovery from gambling harms experienced by individuals and communities;

provide analysis of the efficacy of gambling harms treatment and interventions,

Registered Reports

Registered Reports is a publishing format that emphasizes the importance of the research question and the quality of methodology by conducting peer review prior to data collection. High quality protocols are then provisionally accepted for publication if the authors follow through with the registered methodology.

Results Blind Peer review

Results blind peer review is an article type in which a manuscript evaluation occurs without reference to any analytic findings. The initial focus of the evaluation is on methodological soundness and its ability to generate targeted conclusions. Articles that are approved in stage 1 will then be considered in their full form, including results and discussion, where the evaluate focus will shift to the follow-though of plans.

More details on this workflow here:

Book Review

This section includes reviews of recent books on any relevant topic. These may be academic books or they might be reflections and analyses of relevant books that have been written for the general public. Members outside of the editorial team are also invited to submit book reviews for publication. We welcome informal approaches first that might wish to scope the potential of book reviews.

We welcome both reviews of a single book, as well as reviews that cover multiple titles in a coherent and meaningful way.

Methodological Analysis

This is an article track for contributions that do not report new empirical data (or substantively do not do so) but which provide an analysis of methodological issues for gambling harms research. Examples include systematic evidence reviews, and analysis of methods for investigating gambling harms.

Replications

Articles that focus on the replication and replicability of the existing literature. Articles will be expected to identify a prima facie value for the purposes of replication.

Lived experience

This section is appropriate for lived experience contributions. These may be first-hand accounts of gambling harms (whether directly experienced or as an affected other) or they may be third-hand accounts of multiple lived experience insights.