Reviewer Guidelines
Overview
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. More information about Critical Gambling Studies' conflict of interest policies can be found in our Governance Standards.
Transparency
Once all editorial decisions have been finalized, we encourage all reviewers to identify themselves to the author of manuscripts reviewed and to the readers of the journal through acknowledgement in the manuscript. However, we recognise that in some circumstances this is not possible and this will not prejudice our choice of reviewers.
Reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts of interest to the editors and will be asked the following questions:
Do you have financial interests that are related to the topic or viewpoint expressed in this manuscript? (eg. you have received funding from related business or agencies or invested in businesses that deliver gambling or treatment for problem gambling)
Yes/No
Do you have non-financial interests that are related to the author, topic or viewpoint expressed in this manuscript (eg. you have collaborated professionally or have a history of public or private conflict with the author).
Yes/No
Additional Information
The Committee on Publication Ethics provides a more detailed explanation of best practice in peer-reviewing.
CGS recognises 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
You can read CGS's full equity, diversity and inclusion statement here.
Review Rubric
For reviewers, we request that you use the following rubric to assist you in judging the merits and weaknesses of the manuscript. Your report should refer to the rubric criteria to justify the reason for your recommendation. While the report does not need to be very long, it should briefly explain why you scored some parts as relatively higher or lower, as well as what is needed to lift the quality of parts that you scored as mid-range. This will assist the editors’ judgement, as well as helping authors who have been asked to revise or resubmit to improve the weakest parts of their paper and to signpost the most important evidence and arguments.
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 which 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 skilfully 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 generalisations 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 (eg. ‘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 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 organisation 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 organise 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 organised 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)
The point system is designed to help you assess the article. Please total the points awarded to the article (56 is the total number of points available; please do not include question 9 in your total) and share your assessment of the article for the Editor.
Rough guide to cut off points:
38-43 points for revise and resubmit
43-50 points for accept with minor revisions
50-56 recommend publication without revision
Comments to author
Comments to editor
Do you want your identity to be known to the author?
Reviewers have the option to request to review the updated manuscript prior to acceptance and can indicate this as part of their review comments.
