Research Awards

Nomination process

1. Eligibility for nomination

The call for applications for the prize is aimed at scientists from accredited academic institutions or universities in German-speaking countries (Germany, Switzerland, Austria).

Suitable candidates should have proven expertise in the field relevant to the research award. This expertise can be demonstrated by published research, significant contributions to the field, or other relevant indicators of their knowledge and experience.

2. Criteria

Research must make a novel contribution to the study of gambling and/or gambling addiction. It is intended to make an outstanding contribution to the public interest in gambling within the meaning of Section 1 of the Interstate Treaty on Gambling 2021 (GlüStV 2021). The prize is awarded on the basis of the criteria set out in § 14 (1) of the foundation’s statutes.

3. Author’s Eligibility

In order to be eligible for the German Innovation Award for Gambling Research, the nominees must belong to an academic research institution based in German-speaking countries (eligible authors). These include Germany, Austria and Switzerland. This will ensure that the prize honours outstanding science in the region and promotes innovation.

In the case of research conducted by a team, only eligible authors can receive prize money, but all authors involved in the study will be considered part of the nomination of the prize (contributing authors^[1]). Each author’s contribution to the research should be clearly stated. Eligible authors are expected to have made a substantial contribution to the conceptualization, methodology, investigation, and/or supervision of the research.^[2]

The nominating institution is responsible for identifying all eligible and contributing authors and coordinating the distribution of the prize money among the eligible authors. This also includes obtaining the explicit consent of all contributing authors to the nomination before submitting the nomination.

The role of the institution ensures a fair and transparent process in which all contributors to innovative research are properly recognized.

Authors at any stage of their career can be nominated for the main prize.

A Young Investigator Award is available to researchers who have been working in research for no more than 10 years after receiving their degree (e.g. PhD, Master). The Young Investigator Award and the associated prize money are only awarded to first authors.

4. Institutional nomination

The research must be carried out in an affiliation with a scientific institution from Germany, Switzerland, or Austria with which the nominee(s) is associated and nominated by it. This criterion underscores the Prize’s commitment to maintaining the highest standards of academic integrity and quality.

The nominating institution is responsible for the ethical conduct of the nominated research. These include:

• Ethical oversight: Academic institutions are responsible for the ethical oversight of research conducted in their jurisdiction. This often includes an Institutional Review Board (IRB) or ethics committee that reviews and approves research protocols to ensure that they are designed and conducted in a way that respects the rights and well-being of test subjects.
• Education and training: Institutions play a crucial role in educating researchers about ethical standards and practices. This typically includes training on how to conduct research responsibly, how to protect human subjects, and other relevant ethical issues.
• Scientific integrity: Institutions have a responsibility to create an environment that promotes the integrity of research. This includes policies and practices that prevent misconduct and promote honesty, accuracy, efficiency, and objectivity in research.
• Conflict of Interest and Assignment of Author Entitlements: Academic institutions have a dual role: they must moderate conflicts of interest and ensure proper allocation of credits between authors. Conflicts of interest can compromise the integrity of research and lead to undue influence by external interests. Institutional guidelines must require researchers to disclose financial or other relationships that could influence their research, as well as processes for managing identified conflicts.

Within the framework of the German Innovation Award for Gambling Research, the nominating institution is obliged to confirm the authorship of the nominated research and the distribution of credits among the authors. This endorsement is an important part of the nomination process and ensures that the award recognizes the right people for their entries. It underlines the Prize’s commitment to promoting scientific integrity, transparency and fairness in the recognition of scientific work.

The German Innovation Award for Gambling Research requires that the nominated research must be conducted in conjunction with and submitted by an academic institution to ensure that the research has been subjected to the ethical oversight and scrutiny that those institutions provide. This requirement underscores the Prize’s commitment to promoting research that not only advances our understanding of gambling and/or gambling addiction, but does so in a way that meets the highest ethical standards.

5. Eligible research

The nominated research must be the original work of the contributing authors. The nominated thesis must be a theoretical, empirical or methodological scientific paper written in English.

It should be a single study or a closely related group of studies accepted for publication in one or more peer-reviewed academic publications in the five (5) years prior to the application period.

6. Submission of nominations

The nomination submission process is designed to ensure a comprehensive and rigorous review of the nominees’ research contribution. It includes the following components:

• Research Summary:
  The nominator should submit a summary of the research paper that will be nominated. This summary should succinctly describe the objectives, methodology, results, and implications of the research. It was intended to show why the research is innovative and how it advances the understanding of gambling and/or gambling addiction, taking into account the criteria set out in § 14 (1) of the foundation’s statutes.
• Research Impact Statement:
  The nominator should provide a statement describing how the research contributes to the field of gambling studies. This may include implications for regulatory requirements for consumer protection, addiction prevention, public policy, management science, or other relevant areas that benefit consumers and/or the public.
• Relevance for the assignment of the award:
  The nominator should describe how the research is in line with and contributes to the mission of the German Innovation Award for Gambling Research and the German Foundation for Gambling Research.
• Proof of publication:
  As proof of acceptance of the research in a peer-reviewed academic publication, the nominator should include a copy of the acceptance letter from the relevant scientific journal or conference or a verifiable citation of the published paper.
• Author details:
  The nominator should provide details about the nominee, including their affiliation, academic background, and role in research. If the research was conducted by a team, details of all nominated authors should be provided.

Great emphasis is placed on acknowledging the integrity and moral standards displayed by the authors. This focus goes beyond her scientific contributions and also encompasses the ethical qualities that make up her work.

Qualities such as adherence to research ethics, commitment to truth and accuracy, integrity, respect for diversity and inclusivity, and commitment to the responsible use and dissemination of knowledge are important aspects in the assessment.

These qualities not only increase the credibility of their research, but also serve as a model for other scholars and practitioners in the field.

• Institutional endorsement: The nominator should be accompanied by a letter of recommendation from a high-ranking representative (e.g., dean/vice dean, institute director, president/vice-rector) of the nominating institution, confirming the institution’s support for the nomination and attesting to the integrity and quality of the research.

All nomination documents should be submitted in English. Nominators are encouraged to ensure that their submission is complete and well-prepared to allow for a full review.

The German Foundation for Gambling Research provides a submission template.

[1] Entry authors are not eligible to receive a portion of the prize money, but will be named in the prize.

[2] See CRediT Author Statement: https://www.elsevier.com/authors/policies-and-guidelines/credit-author-statement

1. Criteria

The evaluation framework consists of five key criteria that can be assumed to capture the most important aspects of effective research. These criteria provide a comprehensive and balanced approach to assess the merits of the research nominated for the award. They are intended to highlight the depth and breadth of the contribution of research in this field, the novelty and rigor of its methodology, the potential social and political implications of its results, and its alignment with the mission and goals of the German Innovation Award for Gambling Research and the German Foundation for Gambling Research gGmbH.

a) Relevance to the field

This criterion assesses how closely the research is related to the field of gambling and/or gambling addiction. It examines whether the work addresses key issues, challenges or knowledge gaps in these areas. An excellent rating in this category would represent research that can make a significant contribution to the area by addressing critical issues or issues and potentially guiding policies or interventions related to gambling and/or gambling addiction.

b) Innovation

This measures the degree of novelty and originality in the research. It examines whether the thesis introduces new theories, methods or findings into the study of gambling and/or gambling addiction. It can also be addressed whether the research addresses a unique aspect or perspective that has not yet been thoroughly explored. Research that scores very well in this category would break new ground and potentially lead to a paradigm shift in the way gambling and/or gambling addiction is understood and addressed.

c) Scientific rigor

This criterion assesses the quality of the research design, methodology, and analysis. It examines whether the work is methodologically sound, the results are robust and the conclusions are well supported by the evidence. An excellent score in this category would denote research that exemplifies best practices in research design and methodology.

d) Possible Impact

This assesses the potential of research to have a significant impact on our understanding of gambling, or the prevention of gambling addiction or the improvement of consumer welfare. It examines whether the research could guide policy, influence practices and/or help improve the lives of players, their social circles and the wider community. High-scoring research in this category would have clear, demonstrable potential to create meaningful, positive changes in the real-world regarding gambling and/or gambling addiction beyond academic contributions.

e) Mission Alignment

This criterion assesses how well the research is in line with the mission and values of the German Foundation for Gambling Research gGmbH. It will consider whether the work contributes to the promotion of innovative research that contributes to a better understanding and prevention of gambling addiction and to the improvement of consumer welfare, including research on the full spectrum of gambling (pathological and non-pathological). An excellent score in this category would denote research that is closely linked to and contributes significantly to the Foundation’s mission and objectives, including the objectives of § 1 GlüStV 2021.

2. Initial review

Upon receipt of the full nominations, each member of the jury will conduct an initial review of each nomination. This evaluation focuses on the innovation, scientific rigor, potential impact of the research, and alignment with the mission statement of the German Foundation for Gambling Research gGmbH.

3. Shortlist of nominations

After the initial review, the jury will meet to compile a shortlist of possible award winners, which will be achieved through a joint evaluation of the submissions. At this stage, the jury’s goal is to include all nominations that have a legitimate potential to be contenders for the award to ensure they advance to the next stage of judging.

4. Peer-reviewed review

The peer review process may involve gathering the views and insights of external experts who are recognized in the field of gambling research and/or are subject matter experts in closely related disciplines. These experts, who are not part of the jury, will be selected on an ad hoc basis based on their knowledge and understanding of the specific research areas that represent the shortlisted applications that are not already reflected by the jury.

Each peer reviewer is assigned a peer review that is tailored to their area of expertise. Their role is to thoroughly review the submission and evaluate the scientific value, originality and innovative nature of the research, the potential impact of the work, and the suitability of the nominee(s).

In their peer review, reviewers are encouraged to explain the particular contributions of the nominated research and to comment on their relevance and applicability to the larger field of gambling research. They will also be asked to place the work in a broader scientific context to help the jury understand its significance and potential implications.

The role of peer reviews is consultative in nature, providing a comprehensive understanding of the value and potential impact of the work on the field. However, the final decision will depend on the collective evaluation of the jury, which will decide which nomination is most in line with the goal of the German Innovation Award on Gambling Research and contributes the most to the progress of the field.

5. Final consultation and decision

Following the peer review process, the Advisory Board meets again to discuss and decide on the final award winners. Your decision-making process is holistic and takes into account all five key criteria.

The consultation process is as follows:

In order to be considered in the final round for potential award winners, the nomination should be unanimously approved by the jury. A unanimous decision means a clear consensus among all members of the jury on the value and importance of research.

In the final deliberations, the jury strives for a unanimous decision in the selection of the winner. If a unanimous decision is not possible, a majority decision is implemented. In the event of a tie, where two or more nominations receive the same number of votes, a tie-breaker procedure will be initiated. The jury may obtain the deciding vote from an external expert who is not a member of the jury. This person must have a similar professional qualification to the jury and will only consider the applications that form the tie.

6. Abstention

There may be situations where a jury member abstains from voting. Abstention may occur when a jury member believes that he or she cannot make an impartial decision, for example, if there is a conflict of interest with a particular nomination, or if a jury member believes that he or she does not have sufficient expertise to adequately assess a particular nomination. Abstentions will be respected and will not count towards the total number of votes. The decision will be taken on the basis of the votes cast by the other members. Jury members who abstain may choose to end their abstention if the remaining jury members remove the specific nomination that led to the abstention.

Other considerations

1. Revisions

Policies and procedures will be reviewed and revised as necessary to ensure that they continue to reflect best practices and maintain the highest standards of fairness and rigor that are consistent with the mission of the German Innovation Award for Gambling Research.

2. Confidentiality and transparency

The German Innovation Award for Gambling Research is committed to reconciling the need for confidentiality to ensure the integrity of the evaluation process with the desire for transparency in its workings. The aim is to create trust and credibility while maintaining the privacy of the nominees and the deliberations of the jury.

a) Transparency of the process

The general structure of the procurement procedure is publicly available, which illustrates the comprehensive and objective nature of the procedure. However, in order to ensure the authenticity of the selection process, details of the jury’s internal discussions, deliberations and evaluations will be kept confidential.

b) Confidentiality in peer review

The peer review process must be kept strictly confidential in order to allow for an open exchange of scientific assessments and opinions. This openness is crucial to ensure a comprehensive and unbiased evaluation of each nomination.

c) Non-disclosure of nominees

The names and specific research details of the nominees will not be disclosed during the judging process. This security measure serves to protect the privacy of all nominees and to prevent possible outside interference in the process.

d) Confidentiality

Each member of the Advisory Board, the external evaluators and the administrative staff involved in the procurement procedure sign a confidentiality agreement. These documents reaffirm their commitment to protecting the privacy and intellectual property of the nominees.

e) Breach of confidentiality

Any breaches of confidentiality will be dealt with promptly and with the utmost seriousness. Any person who has violated their confidentiality agreement can be dismissed from their position and face further legal consequences.

f) Announcement of the award winners

After the final decision has been made and the laureates have been informed, the identity of the laureates and a general justification for their selection will be published. This disclosure allows the Foundation to recognize and recognize excellence and innovation in gambling research.

g) Unsuccessful nominees

Information about unsuccessful nominations, including the identity of the nominees, will be kept confidential. However, in the interests of transparency, aggregated statistical information on the number and major research areas of nominations may be disclosed.

h) Request for transparency

The Foundation is committed to openness and will endeavour to answer questions about the procedure and award criteria. However, these responses will be within the limits set by the need to respect the privacy of the nominees and maintain the integrity of the process.

3. Minutes

Minutes of all advisory board meetings are kept. These minutes document the procedural elements of the meetings, including the members present, the main topics for discussion and the general decisions, without disclosing specific details of the nominations or the deliberations relating thereto.

The minutes will be made available to all members of the Advisory Board to ensure mutual understanding and agreement on the procedure. However, they remain confidential documents that will not be made available to the public or nominees in order to protect the privacy of the discussion and the integrity of the decision-making process.

In the event of transparency issues, a redacted version of the protocol may be made available upon official request, omitting confidential and sensitive information. This decision is at the discretion of the Advisory Board and will be taken with the utmost care to maintain the balance between transparency and confidentiality.

This protocol policy underscores the Prize’s commitment to process integrity by ensuring a recorded trail of decisions while ensuring the open exchange of scientific opinions and evaluations, the privacy of nominees, and the overall fairness of the award process.