Open Science Practices in Gambling Research Publications (2016-2019): A Scoping Review.

Autor: Louderback ER; Division on Addiction, Cambridge Health Alliance, a Harvard Medical School Teaching Hospital, Malden, MA, USA.; Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA., Gainsbury SM; University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia. sally.gainsbury@sydney.edu.au., Heirene RM; University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia., Amichia K; Division on Addiction, Cambridge Health Alliance, a Harvard Medical School Teaching Hospital, Malden, MA, USA., Grossman A; Division on Addiction, Cambridge Health Alliance, a Harvard Medical School Teaching Hospital, Malden, MA, USA., Bernhard BJ; International Gaming Institute, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, NV, USA.; University of Nevada, Reno, NV, USA., LaPlante DA; Division on Addiction, Cambridge Health Alliance, a Harvard Medical School Teaching Hospital, Malden, MA, USA.; Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Jazyk: angličtina
Zdroj: Journal of gambling studies [J Gambl Stud] 2023 Jun; Vol. 39 (2), pp. 987-1011. Date of Electronic Publication: 2022 Jun 09.
DOI: 10.1007/s10899-022-10120-y
Abstrakt: The replication crisis has stimulated researchers around the world to adopt open science research practices intended to reduce publication bias and improve research quality. Open science practices include study pre-registration, open data, open access, and avoiding methods that can lead to publication bias and low replication rates. Although gambling studies uses similar research methods as behavioral research fields that have struggled with replication, we know little about the uptake of open science research practices in gambling-focused research. We conducted a scoping review of 500 recent (1/1/2016-12/1/2019) studies focused on gambling and problem gambling to examine the use of open science and transparent research practices. Our results showed that a small percentage of studies used most practices: whereas 54.6% (95% CI: [50.2, 58.9]) of studies used at least one of nine open science practices, each practice's prevalence was: 1.6% for pre-registration (95% CI: [0.8, 3.1]), 3.2% for open data (95% CI: [2.0, 5.1]), 0% for open notebook, 35.2% for open access (95% CI: [31.1, 39.5]), 7.8% for open materials (95% CI: [5.8, 10.5]), 1.4% for open code (95% CI: [0.7, 2.9]), and 15.0% for preprint posting (95% CI: [12.1, 18.4]). In all, 6.4% (95% CI: [4.6, 8.9]) of the studies included a power analysis and 2.4% (95% CI: [1.4, 4.2]) were replication studies. Exploratory analyses showed that studies that used any open science practice, and open access in particular, had higher citation counts. We suggest several practical ways to enhance the uptake of open science principles and practices both within gambling studies and in science more generally.
(© 2022. The Author(s).)
Databáze: MEDLINE
Externí odkaz:
Nepřihlášeným uživatelům se plný text nezobrazuje