Revisiting gambling research contributors’ use and views of open science principles and practices: a brief report

Debi A. LaPlante et al.

International Gambling Studies2025https://doi.org/10.1080/14459795.2025.2456797article
ABDC B
Weight
0.37

Abstract

Open science practices, such as research pre-registration and open data access, are designed to protect against threats to research integrity and promote the acceleration of science. Yet, for many academic disciplines, including gambling studies, the use of these practices remains limited and often in need of improvement. This brief report provides new information about how the use of such practices has changed during the past 5 years. In a survey of 65 gambling studies research stakeholders who had attended a major international gambling studies conference in May 2023, we observed that a majority reported engaging in these practices, but minorities reported doing so for any particular practice. Holding more perceived benefits of open science was associated with a greater likelihood of using those practices in research. Comparisons with a sample of stakeholders from 2019 indicated some increases in open science practices, and areas in need of improvement. These and other findings provide guidance for boosting support for the use of open science principles and practices in gambling studies research.

1 citation

Open via your library →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/14459795.2025.2456797

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{debi2025,
  title        = {{Revisiting gambling research contributors’ use and views of open science principles and practices: a brief report}},
  author       = {Debi A. LaPlante et al.},
  journal      = {International Gambling Studies},
  year         = {2025},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/14459795.2025.2456797},
}

Paste directly into BibTeX, Zotero, or your reference manager.

Flag this paper

Revisiting gambling research contributors’ use and views of open science principles and practices: a brief report

Flags are reviewed by the Arbiter methodology team within 5 business days.


Evidence weight

0.37

Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40

F · citation impact0.16 × 0.4 = 0.06
M · momentum0.53 × 0.15 = 0.08
V · venue signal0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03
R · text relevance †0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20

† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.