Submissions

Author Guidelines

In addition to reviewing the author guidelines below, it is recommended that authors read Critical Gambling Studies' Reviewer Guidelines and Editorial and Governance Standards before submitting a manuscript to the journal. Authors can also view the Author Publication Agreement.

Structure

Your paper should be submitted as two separate documents. The cover letter/title page should include the title, author affiliations and details, disclosure statement,  funding details, and word count. The main document/article text should include an abstract, 4–6 keywords, the main text, and a bibliography.

To ensure that the review process remains anonymous, all information that could identify the author(s) must be eliminated from the references and text of the main document of your submitted manuscript. Please ensure that you have also removed any metadata (such as author information in Microsoft Word) that could compromise your anonymity.  Please note: Non-anonymized manuscripts will be returned to the author. 

Style Guidelines

All manuscripts should be submitted in APA (7th Edition) format. Please note that APA 7th Edition requires that if a work has a DOI (digital object identifier), the DOI is included in the reference listing, even if you used the print version of that resource. A DOI is a unique string of letters and numbers that refers to a specific article, eBook, or other online work. The DOI can typically be found on the first page of a work or on the information page about the work.

Please use double quotation marks, except for a quotation within a quotation, in which case single quotation marks should be used. Lengthy quotations should be separate and indented. Font should be 12-point, using italics for emphasis.

Please include a word count for your paper. The word count guidelines for specific article types are outlined below

Article Types

Original Research Articles (Peer-Reviewed)
Critical Gambling Studies welcomes high quality original research and knowledge syntheses from a wide array of disciplines. Given the diversity of disciplines we want to publish, we deliberately set a broad word count range – papers between 5,000 and 8,000 words, inclusive of abstract and all references, will be considered.

Commentaries (Edited)
Commentaries include:
     - articles by academic authors that are primarily editorial or opinion in nature
     - articles by non-academic experts
     - critiques of articles previously published in Critical Gambling Studies
Abstracts and references are optional depending on the nature of the commentary, although manuscripts must still follow APA (7th Edition) format. Commentary articles are typically 1,000–2,000 words, inclusive of abstract and references.

Book Reviews
Critical Gambling Studies publishes edited reviews of recent academic books on gambling. Reviews are solicited by the Book Reviews Editor, but proposals are also welcome and should be sent to dgbaxter@lakeheadu.ca. Book reviews are typically 1,000–1,500 words.

CGS Blog
Non-peer-reviewed blog entries are published on the journal website and the interactive blog. If you are interested submitting a CGS Blog post, please contact uagaming@ualberta.ca.

Other Publication Types
Critical Gambling Studies seeks to broaden modes of gambling scholarship and as such is receptive to other types of publications. For example, we published an original English language translation of a fragment written by GFW Hegel on card games. Proposals for innovative publications may be sent to uagaming@ualberta.ca.

What to Include

Author Details. All authors should include their full name and affiliation on the title page of the manuscript, and where possible, include ORCiDs and social media accounts (Twitter, LinkedIn, Academia.edu, ResearchGate, etc.). One author must be identified as the corresponding author. Affiliations are where research was conducted, not where authors currently work. If authors have moved, please include this as a footnote on the title page.

Abstract of 200 words. This should succinctly describe the paper’s topic, its methodology and findings, and their importance or consequence.

Funding details. Submissions to the journal must include a full statement of financial and other support from all sources for the previous three years. This must include all relevant funding bodies and, where possible, grant numbers or details. Where funding or support from gambling industry actors has been received within that period, the paper will not normally be accepted for consideration. However, authors may make a case to the editors (to be published as an addendum to any published articles) that the submitted paper is based on research that is distinct and independent from these sources, and demonstrate how research findings have not been affected by a history of such support. If such papers are accepted for peer-review, reviewers will be asked to consider the case as a key item in determining their view of the merits of the paper.

Disclosure statement. You must here acknowledge any financial or professional benefits or interests that have arisen from your research or its funding, and confirm that the submission has not been previously published, nor is it at another journal for consideration.

Biographical Note. 100 words per author.

Figures. These should be high quality (1200 dpi for line art, 600 dpi for grayscale, and 300 dpi for colour). Where possible, please include figures embedded within the article text document in the initial submission. Should your article be published, we might ask you to supply a separate higher resolution document such as a PNG, JPEG, or GIF as part of the production process. Any figures used should be either free to use, or you must demonstrate appropriate permissions.

Tables. These must present new information rather than duplicating information already in the text. Please include tables in the article text document as part of your submission. 

What to Exclude

To ensure that the review process remains anonymous, all information that could identify the author(s) must be eliminated from the references and text of your submitted manuscript as well as metadata that could compromise your anonymity.

Please note that if your manuscript is accepted for publication after the review process, we will require a final version of the manuscript for copyediting that addresses the following:

1. Include author names, affiliations, biography statements, manuscript title, abstract, and keywords in the manuscript.
2. If you have used a Reference Management System (e.g., Endnote, Mendeley, Zotero), you need to convert all references to plain text before submitting your revised manuscript.
3. If you have cited your own research, please de-anonymize and include the full references in your revised manuscript.
4. If you have used any figures, please ensure that we are given high quality, clear images (1200 dpi for line art, 600 dpi for grayscale, and 300 dpi for colour).

Open Access Policy (including APC)

Critical Gambling Studies is a diamond open-access journal, meaning that authors will never be charged to submit or publish a manuscript through Critical Gambling Studies. All articles are made available under a Creative Commons license, as indicated in the Copyright Notice at the bottom of the Submission guidelines.

Editorial Handling

Every participant in the peer-review and publication process—including, authors, editors, editorial board members, and reviewers—must consider their conflicts of interest when participating in the process of article review and publication and must disclose all relationships that could be viewed as potential conflicts of interest.

Critical Gambling Studies has three editors. An editor will recuse themselves from editorial decisions if they have conflicts of interest or relationships that pose potential conflicts related to articles under consideration. Information about the types of conflicts of interest considered and other specific conflict of interest policies is available on the Governance Standards page

The Peer-Review Process

We encourage you to nominate up to three potential reviewers for the editor to take into consideration. These should be individuals whom you judge to have relevant expertise in the topic your manuscript addresses and with whom you have no conflict of interest. These individuals must be able to provide an arms-length peer review and not know the identity of the author from the manuscript. It cannot be someone who you have collaborated with or who is at the same institution. 

You may also nominate up to three authors in the field of gambling studies who you do not wish to review the manuscript.

In order to make the reviewing process as transparent as possible, you should know that your paper will be reviewed according to the following standards. These standards can also be used as a checklist for authors prior to submission. For more information, see the Reviewer Guidelines page.

1. Research

This rating should reflect the quality of research on the aspect of gambling under consideration. The paper should aim to make a valuable contribution to existing knowledge in the field. Appropriate academic and grey literature sources should be used to introduce the topic and demonstrate the research's contribution.

1 Insufficient research.
2 Very weak research, but some of value.
3 Adequate research but value to the field is not clear.
4 Much of the research is clearly of value to the field.
5 Most of the research clearly contributes to the field.
6 Overall the research makes an important contribution to the field.
7 Excellent research that makes a significant contribution to the field.

2. Methodology

This rating should reflect how well the author(s) convey the methodology behind the research, keeping in mind that people from different disciplines – as well as potentially an interested public – might be reading the paper.

1 Absent methodology.
2 Incomplete methodology.
3 Methodology is present but lacks some important details.
4 Methodology is sufficient.
5 Methodology is well fleshed out.
6 Methodology is detailed and well applied.
7 Methodology is meticulously explained and skillfully applied.

3. Argument

This rating reflects the extent to which the reader can follow and potentially be persuaded by the author(s) argument in the context of existing arguments in the literature. There should not be obvious contradictions, unfounded generalizations, or other flaws in the argumentation.

1 Argument is difficult to discern.
2 Argument is broadly unconvincing.
3 Argument is persuasive in parts but its relevance to existing arguments is unclear.
4 Argument is somewhat convincing but fails to substantially engage with existing arguments.
5 Argument is fairly convincing and demonstrates a basic engagement with existing arguments.
6 Argument is convincing and thoroughly engaged with existing arguments.
7 Argument is careful, clearly articulated, and makes an important contribution to current arguments.

4. Use of Qualitative and/or Quantitative Evidence

This rating should reflect how the evidence marshalled supports and informs the claims and arguments of the paper. This includes citation of appropriate academic and grey literature sources in addition to new research evidence presented.

1 Evidence is barely used.
2 A little evidence is deployed to support the paper’s claim.
3 Evidence is adequate but does not convincingly support the claims made in the paper.
4 Evidence supports some of the paper’s claims.
5 Evidence is more than sufficient, but could be used better to support its claims.
6 Evidence supports most assertions and arguments in the paper.
7 Evidence is extensive and clearly supports all the claims and arguments in the paper.

5. Theoretical Frameworks

This rating should reflect how theoretical frameworks are used, with a particular focus on providing a comprehensive and convincing grounding for the rest of the paper.

1 There is no theoretical foundation.
2 There are only a handful of ideas in lieu of a full theoretical background.
3 There is some theory, but it is poorly developed or applied.
4 Theoretical foundation just about makes clear the paper’s orientation.
5 Theoretical foundation is convincing but needs a lot more detail.
6 The theoretical foundation is strong but needs a little more detail.
7 The theoretical framework used is detailed and productively applied.

6. Quality of Writing and Intelligibility

This rating should reflect the clarity and quality of the writing, keeping in mind a diverse range of disciplinary readers. Authors should avoid typographic errors, unnecessary field-specific terminology, poor sentence construction, and over-reliance on the passive voice (e.g., "it was demonstrated" rather than "our team demonstrated").

1 Writing is extremely unclear.
2 Writing is mostly unclear.
3 Writing is unclear in several parts of the paper.
4 Writing is mostly adequate, but areas need significant revision.
5 Writing is mostly good, but some parts need editorial attention.
6 Writing is strong throughout, with only a few typos or unclear passages.
7 Writing is of very high quality throughout.

7. Originality

This rating should reflect the originality of the research – to what extent is this a genuinely new contribution to our critical understanding of gambling and related phenomena?

1 There is nothing new in this paper.
2 There are very few new ideas in this paper.
3 This paper has some new ideas, but not enough for a complete paper.
4 While there is some originality in this paper, it is not significant, or it needs to be made more explicit.
5 This is an original piece of research.
6 This is a significantly original piece of research.
7 This is an exceptionally original piece of research.

8. Organization and Structure

This rating should reflect the organization and structure of the paper – how well are the elements of the paper (argument, methodology, theoretical framework, and supporting evidence) tied together, from the introduction through to the conclusion?

1 There is no structure to organize the paper.
2 The structure is difficult to discern.
3 There is a structure but it is sometimes unclear.
4 The paper’s structure is adequate but lacks signposting.
5 The structure is mostly clear throughout.
6 The structure provides a very strong support for the paper’s content.
7 The paper is organized exceptionally well.

9. Figures, Tables, and Supplementary Data (if relevant)

*Please note this question is for feedback only and should not be counted in the final score.

This rating should reflect how well figures, tables, and supplementary data is presented. Are these clear, easy to read, and an important aspect of the paper as a whole?

1 The figures/tables/supplementary data are unnecessary.
2 The figures/tables/supplementary data seem tangential to the paper.
3 The figures/tables/supplementary data are not clearly relevant and/or poorly presented.
4 The figures/tables/supplementary data are relevant but inadequately or poorly presented.
5 The figures/tables/supplementary data are important and adequately presented.
6 The figures/tables/supplementary data are necessary, clear, and enhance the paper.
7 The figures/tables/supplementary data are important, clear, and extremely well presented.

TOTAL OF 56 points (not including question 9)

Rough guide to cut-off points:
38–43 points for revise and resubmit
43–50 points for accept with minor revisions
50–56 points to recommend for publication without revision