ICRG Firewall

 

Grant Review Criteria


The ICRG seeks proposals of high scientific merit from investigators who show promise of disseminating their work at high-impact conferences and in peer-reviewed scientific journals. Proposals are evaluated by peer-review panels of experienced researchers in the field of addictions according to the following criteria, which are adapted from the National Institutes of Health:

1. Importance of the Research. Does the project address a critical problem or significant barrier in the field? Will successful completion of the project substantially advance scientific knowledge, clinical practices, methodologies, or preventive interventions? Does the proposal use innovative concepts or approaches, or improve and refine existing methodologies?

2. Rigor and Feasibility: Is the overall strategy, methodology, and analysis clearly justified and likely to yield robust, reproducible results? Are potential problems and alternative strategies clearly addressed? For clinical research, are human subject protections justified and appropriate?

3. Expertise and Resources: Are the investigators well-qualified, with complementary expertise and clear leadership roles? Does the environment, including institutional support, resources, equipment, and collaborative arrangements, enhance the likelihood of successful project completion?

Peer Reviewers


The following scientists reviewed grants applications for the ICRG in 2024:

‍

Brian Borsari, PhD

Professor of Psychiatry

University of California-San Francisco Weill Institute for Neurosciences

‍

Bethany Bray, PhD

Associate Professor

Department of Medicine

University of Illinois at Chicago

‍

Luke Clark, PhD

Professor of Psychology

Director of the Centre for Gambling Research

University of British Columbia

‍

Heather Gray, PhD

Assistant Professor, Harvard Medical School

Director of Academic Affairs at the Division on Addiction

Cambridge Health Alliance

‍

Joshua Grubbs, PhD

 Associate Professor

Bowling Green State University

‍

‍Scott Huettel, PhD

Professor in the Department of Psychology and Neuroscience

Bass Fellow

Professor of Neurobiology

Duke University

 

Debi LaPlante, PhD

Associate Professor of Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School

Director, Division on Addiction, Cambridge Health Alliance

‍

Matthew Martens, PhD

Associate Provost for Academic Programs

University of Missouri, Columbia

‍

Dipali Rinker, PhD

Assistant Professor

Behavioral Sciences and Population Health

American University of the Caribbean School of Medicine

‍

Paul Sacco, PhD

Associate Professor of Social Work

University of Maryland, Baltimore

‍

Nathan Smith, PhD

Executive Director

Kindbridge Research Institute

 

Krishna Vaddiparti, PhD

Assistant Professor of Epidemiology

University of Florida

 

Jeremiah Weinstock, PhD

Professor, Clinical Program

Department of Psychology

Saint Louis University

‍

ICRG Policy on Academic Integrity and Research Misconduct

“Research misconduct is defined as fabrication, falsification and plagiarism, and does not include honest error or differences of opinion.” (ORI 2005)

ICRG is committed to ensuring the academic integrity of all research funded with its grants. ICRG conducts multiple reviews of grant applications and related proposals every year. Peer reviewers who believe they have identified research misconduct in the form of fabrication, falsification or plagiarism are required to alert ICRG’s Senior Research Director immediately upon such concern. The allegation must not be discussed during peer review, and the reviewer making the allegation will be reminded of the ICRG policy on confidentiality. An application flagged for possible misconduct will still be put through the peer review process.

Within 30 days of being alerted to possible misconduct, the Senior Research Director will convene a meeting of the Scientific Advisory Board (SAB) to discuss the allegation. The Senior Research Director will be required to assess any conflicts of interest within the SAB prior to the meeting.

Within 30 days of such meeting, the SAB will decide by at least a two-thirds/majority vote of all of its then members if the alleged misconduct should be reported to the grant applicant’s institutional office of research integrity. Alleged misconduct must be deemed egregious in the eyes of the SAB to be so reported. The Senior Research Director will then be solely responsible for any communications with the applicant’s institution on behalf of ICRG.

NIH Office of Scientific Integrity Definitions for purposes of this Policy: Fabrication: Making up data or results and recording or reporting them. Falsification: Manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented Plagiarism: The appropriation of another’s ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit

References:

Handling Misconduct | ORI – The Office of Research Integrity. (2005). The Office of Research Integrity. https://ori.hhs.gov/handling-misconduct

Eisner, R., & Vasgird, D. (2003). Responsible Conduct of Research : Research Misconduct. https://Ccnmtl.Columbia.Edu/Projects/Rcr/Rcr_misconduct/WinResources.Html.

Research Transparency Statement


The International Center for Responsible Gaming (ICRG) provides funding for scientific research using donations from commercial and tribal gaming companies, equipment manufacturers, vendors, ICRG Governing Board members, and the community at large. ICRG utilizes the following safeguards to ensure ethical and rigorous science: 

  • A Scientific Advisory Board (SAB)
    1. The SAB sets research priorities, determines funding mechanisms, and makes final funding decisions without donor input (Cottler et al., 2016a)
    2. The SAB independently selects its own members—neither the ICRG Governing Board nor industry donors have any role in these appointments, and SAB members must declare any conflicts of interest with industry donors on an annual basis. 
    3. SAB members volunteer their time and are not financially compensated.  
    4. SAB members are prohibited from applying for, or participating in, ICRG grants.
  • Firewall Between Donors and Researchers
    1. The ICRG Governing Board and donors do not participate in shaping research agendas, reviewing or selecting proposals for funding, or influencing publication decisions from funded research.
    2. Grantees maintain academic freedom to design, conduct, and publish their work without restriction or interference by ICRG, the Governing Board, donors, or the SAB.
  • Rigorous Peer Review and Open Calls
    1. Calls for proposals are open to researchers worldwide, encouraging diverse perspectives, methods, and expertise.
    2. All proposals undergo a rigorous peer review process by independent experts (see https://www.icrg.org/information/our-process/). 
    3. Funding decisions reflect scientific merit (Cottler et al., 2016a).
  • Transparency in Funding Acknowledgments
    1. ICRG grantees are required to acknowledge ICRG funding in publications as part of their funding agreement (Cottler et al., 2016b).
  • Commitment to Open Science and Risk-of-Bias Monitoring
    1. ICRG encourages all funded researchers to adopt Open Science practices, including project pre-registration, data sharing (where ethical and feasible), and transparent reporting.
    2. We endorse the development of instruments to detect and mitigate funding-related bias.

By adhering to these guidelines, the ICRG strives to maintain a robust firewall between industry funding and the scientific process, upholding the highest standards of research integrity and accountability (Cottler et al., 2016a; 2016b).

References

Click here to download PDF