CGS Equity, Diversity and Inclusion Statement
CGS Equity, Diversity and Inclusion Statement
The Critical Gambling Studies Journal is part of a suite of Open Access Journals hosted by the University of Alberta Libraries.
The editorial board of Critical Gambling Studies recognizes that substantive equity between stakeholders and engagement with intersectionality are required for ethical knowledge production and communication of research about gambling. Equity requires attention to racial injustice and colonialism; gender diversity; diverse sexualities; class inequality; and disability. We are aware that the governance and regulation of gambling in many nations is marked by histories and ongoing practices that promote White belonging through extractive relationships with Black and other non-White racialized people. Understanding the role of gambling in the continuing work of Empire, we strive to respond ethically to the interests of Indigenous peoples in whose sovereign territories many scholars live and work. We are also attentive to the work of critical disability and queer scholarship which seeks to disrupt preconceptions of what it means to be a ‘normal’ citizen/consumer who is free and able to ‘gamble responsibly’.
We actively seek to include diverse perspectives in our journal, including through appointments to our editorial board; seeking out a wide range of reviewers; and informing our reviewers and copy editors about inclusive language and best practice approaches to peer review where required. We guide our reviewers to provide constructive, developmental feedback, and we provide guidance to authors about alternative publication outlets when we desk reject a piece. We are currently exploring ways to value the (unpaid) work of our reviewers and subeditors, including through public recognition of their service.
We recognise that academic review processes can reinscribe racism. In line with guidance on Anti-Racist Scholarly Reviewing Practices for Editors, Reviewers, and Authors, we commit to:
- Recognizing a range of expertise and encouraging citation practices that represent diverse canons, epistemological foundations, and ways of knowing
- Establishing and stating clear but flexible contingency plans for review processes that prioritize humanity over production
- Making our review processes transparent
- Valuing the labour of those involved in the review process including by publicly thanking reviewers who agree to be named at annual events
- Committing to inclusivity among reviewers and in editorial board makeup
We will send reviewers a link to the heuristic guide if they require additional information on anti-racist review practices.
The editorial board will revisit the journal’s editorial and review practices at least annually, to ascertain whether actions have been inline with the guide, and where additional work is needed.
Critical Gambling Studies works to ensure accessibility of scholarship through our open access journal publication, and our regular blog. We see open access publishing, and support for a range of high-quality research outputs (including in the form of blog posts, and presentations at public events), as a driver of equity and inclusion in a world where misinformation and disinformation proliferate.
We recognise that to understand the intersection between gambling and inequality requires engagement with a wider range of expertise than has traditionally been reflected in our sub-field. Our journal is part of a wider effort to support bibliodiversity in academic publishing, within and beyond gambling studies. As defined in the Declaration of Independent Publishers (2014), the term bibliodiversity “refers to the critical diversity of products (books, scripts, eBooks, apps and oral literature) made available to readers”. It includes story-telling, oral outputs, etc. In this understanding, research requires a diverse publishing ecosystem that preserves and strengthens plurality, and addresses epistemic injustice (including by valuing those whose knowledge and outputs are made invisible by current metrics).[1] In line with international efforts to improve the equitable and ethical assessment of research[2], we measure our journal’s success through a range of measures (including the proportion of early career scholars publishing in our issues, the diversity of our editorial board, and the range of disciplines represented) that provide an alternative to commercially-derived journal impact factors.
[1] See Shearer, Kathleen, Chan, Leslie, Kuchma, Iryna, & Mounier, Pierre. (2020). Fostering Bibliodiversity in Scholarly Communications: A Call for Action. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3752923
[2] For example, see San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment, Leiden Manifesto for Research Metrics, the Jussieu Call for Open Science and Bibliodiversity, the Confederation of Open Access Repositories.
