View More View Less
  • 1 Department of Communication, University of Münster, Münster, Germany
Open access

Based on their analysis of Internet gaming disorder (IGD) criteria, Kuss, Griffiths, and Pontes (2017) come to the conclusion that the current situation can be described as “chaos and confusion.” Their assessment is not an exaggeration. It can be argued that there are even more issues, on logical/definitional and political/social levels: (a) the IGD diagnosis is lacking a well-defined object, (b) the cause and effect cannot be differentiated outside lab conditions, (c) the social and political effects of declaring a social behavior as a disease are worrying, and (d) a rushed diagnosis may construct an addiction with potentially harmful effects on (formerly) healthy populations. Instead of closing the debate by declaring a consensus and codifying IGD in the DSM, an undogmatic, intensified, and broader discussion is needed.

Abstract

Based on their analysis of Internet gaming disorder (IGD) criteria, Kuss, Griffiths, and Pontes (2017) come to the conclusion that the current situation can be described as “chaos and confusion.” Their assessment is not an exaggeration. It can be argued that there are even more issues, on logical/definitional and political/social levels: (a) the IGD diagnosis is lacking a well-defined object, (b) the cause and effect cannot be differentiated outside lab conditions, (c) the social and political effects of declaring a social behavior as a disease are worrying, and (d) a rushed diagnosis may construct an addiction with potentially harmful effects on (formerly) healthy populations. Instead of closing the debate by declaring a consensus and codifying IGD in the DSM, an undogmatic, intensified, and broader discussion is needed.

In their insightful and important paper, Kuss, Griffiths, and Pontes (2017) describe the current situation of the DSM-5 diagnosis of Internet gaming disorder (IGD) as “chaos and confusion.” The authors identify several problems, focusing on the IGD criteria and their conceptual and empirical issues. Their criticism is also directed against a position that aims to end the current debate by simply declaring a consensus instead of actually working on one (Petry et al., 2014). This “consensus” has been disputed elsewhere (Griffiths et al., 2016), but the criticism may have remained unheard outside the ivory tower.

At present, several parties seem interested in shortcutting the scientific debate and in normatively establishing a disease without the clarity that Kuss et al. (2017) thoughtfully ask for. There are solid data that challenge the proposed diagnosis in its current form (as also mentioned by Griffiths et al., 2016), but this evidence seems to be ignored to push forward the goal of a normative codification. Obviously, this situation is not helpful for the advancement of research in that area. However, what is far worse is that premature steps in defining “something” as an addiction may affect many people’s lives by stigmatizing them and exposing them to a potentially wrong treatment. In short, this is scientifically wrong, and even dangerous, both on the medical and societal levels.

The assessment of the situation may sound harsh. However, Kuss et al. (2017) make several valid and empirically well-founded points that cast severe doubt on the current situation and the political drive to codify IGD. In addition to their discussion operating on the level of criteria and their empirical proof, I would like to add some other doubts operating on the logical/definitional and political/social levels.

On the definitional level, some of the very basic elements of the diagnosis are unclear or, worse, may even be non-existent. The current diagnosis and most attempts to measure IGD, for that matter, are lacking a well-defined object of the disorder. In short, what are people actually addicted to? A large variety of platforms, channels, and genres of games may or may not be relevant here. There are games on personal computers, consoles, and mobile devices, played solo on- and offline, with other co-present players, or with other players online, in small groups or large socially rich environments. There are elaborate Triple-A titles, casual games, browser games, and games with a clear end, an open end, or with limited or open game worlds, played with traditional controllers at home, on the go with touch devices, or, lately, using Virtual Reality goggles or Augmented Reality devices. There are free-to-play games with micro-transactions, subscription models, and retail titles. There are sports games, massively multiplayer online role-playing games, first-person shooters, and Jump-and-Runs, to name but a few genres, and their users differ in their motivation to play these games (DeGrove et al., 2017; Scharkow, Festl, Vogelgesang, & Quandt, 2014). Anybody who has done just limited research in the field must know that some of these types of games are much more likely to cause problems than others, but certainly, the mechanism or the cause here is not the Internet as the technological “channel” of play (and indeed, the exclusive focus on “Internet” gaming is irritating). Some elements of the game mechanics, in particular the reward systems, may play a role in problematic behavior, as well as the narrative and graphics, accessibility, immersion, persistence of game worlds, or the social aspects of the games. In short, player experience is much more complex, and the interplay of narrative, mechanics, and context need to be considered (Elson, Breuer, Ivory, & Quandt, 2014). However, all of these differentiations seem to be absent from the diagnosis so far. As it is, IGD is as well defined as calling a specific substance addiction as a “stuff that emits smoke disease” or “powder disorder” (and this is not even an ironic overstatement).

Furthermore, how can we differentiate cause and effect in IGD? The few longitudinal studies in the field do not give a good and consistent answer. Indeed, support exists for both causation and selection effects, virtually no effect at all, or anything in between (Gentile et al., 2011; Haagsma, King, Pieterse, & Peters, 2013; King, Delfabbro, & Griffiths, 2013; Scharkow, Festl, & Quandt, 2014; Van Rooij, Schoenmakers, Vermulst, Van Den Eijnden, & Van De Mheen, 2011). Logically, arguing for a clear starting point is difficult. In social reality, outside conveniently controlled lab studies, gaming can be many things at once – a compensatory behavior used for escapism, a tool for mood management, a reinforcing agent for existing problems, a stress relief, just fun, and much more. As scientists, we try to trim down social reality and its complexity to a manageable level and to causal chains, but under field conditions, fully untangling the underlying processes as being directional may be impossible, even if some partial causality is involved. Furthermore, the reasons for life problems may not be in the problematic behavior itself but somewhere else. Indeed, one may not ask what excessive users of games do too much, but it should actually be what is missing in their life in terms of meaningful and fulfilling other orientations. In short, just blaming the game is most likely too simple, but the identification of a clear “villain” seems to be not only important for etiological reasons but also for the justification of a clear-cut diagnosis.

On a more general level, one may question the very idea of defining a social behavior as a disease. Stigmatizing forms of media use and social behavior has serious political and social implications. Does this, in the end, not open the door for behavioral control along the lines of norms decided in academic (or other) circles? Furthermore, should we not critically ask who has the right to decide on what form of behavior is healthy, reasonable, and even desirable, and where does it stop? Arguably, including gambling and IGD as behavioral disorders in the DSM has set a precedent for behavioral “addictions.” Now that Pandora’s box has been opened, others may follow, and it is not unlikely that social media/network addiction (Andreassen et al., 2016; Andreassen, Torsheim, Brunborg, & Pallesen, 2012; Griffiths, Kuss, & Demetrovics, 2014) may be the next on the list. With the principle being established, arguing against the inclusion of other forms of problematic behaviors may be difficult, at least if gaming should not be treated differently than other forms of behavior.

Finally, rushing a diagnosis on the basis of chaos and confusion, as Kuss et al. (2017) describe it, is certainly not a good idea. The moral panic surrounding games – a situation that urges researchers to come to quick conclusions – has been discussed elsewhere (Bowman, 2015; Ferguson & Beaver, 2016). However, taking the time to improve the theoretical and empirical weaknesses of the current debate is not a hindrance to scientific progress. On the contrary, advancing science instead of closing the door for critical research by proclaiming a normative “consensus” is necessary. Such a premature closure of crucial definitional processes and accompanying empirical research may lead to the “invention” of a disorder. As psychology has a certain inglorious past of defining behaviors as being outside the acceptable or even mental illnesses, one needs to be careful here not only for historical reasons. The effect of the codification of IGD may be similar to flip-flop pictures: if IGD is being codified in the DSM and discussed widely in public, then parents, peers, and therapists may see patterns of “medically relevant” behavior in forms of use that were previously considered normal. Once the perceptional pattern is established, reverting to the previous viewpoint may be difficult. Indeed, there is anecdotal evidence of parents committing their children to hospitals for the treatment of “online games addiction” in panic, based on press coverage of the topic and the very existence of specialized help services. In some cases, these children have relatively low exposure times and show few clinical characteristics. It has been warned elsewhere that there is a tendency in addiction research toward “overpathologizing everyday life” (Billieux, Schimmenti, Khazaal, Maurage, & Heeren, 2015) – which in turn will have an impact on social reality.

In short, the current situation seems to be an attempt to nail jelly against the wall. Such attempts have not been very successful in the past, and they typically result in a mess. Instead of pushing toward an imminent codification of IGD, it may be helpful to take a step back and start an intensified debate for a real consensus, including all researchers in the field, with an open end, which may include the rejection of IGD being a clinically relevant condition as one likely option, besides its inclusion in the DSM. This goal may require targeted workshops and conferences, intensified scale development, and cross-national comparative and longitudinal studies, among other steps (some of which are also mentioned by Kuss et al., 2017). It would also require moving past thinking in stereotypes and camps. Furthermore, it may entail dedication and time. However, as the paper by Kuss et al. (2017) has clearly shown, we need to take that time to move beyond the current state of chaos and confusion.

Conflict of interest

The author declares no conflict of interest.

References

  • Andreassen, C. S., Billieux, J., Griffiths, M. D., Kuss, D. J., Demetrovics, Z., Mazzoni, E., & Pallesen, S. (2016). The relationship between addictive use of social media and video games and symptoms of psychiatric disorders: A large-scale cross-sectional study. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 30(2), 252262. doi:10.1037/adb0000160

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Andreassen, C. S., Torsheim, T., Brunborg, G. S., & Pallesen, S. (2012). Development of a Facebook addiction scale. Psychological Reports, 110, 501517. doi:10.2466/02.09.18.PR0.110.2.501-517

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Billieux, J., Schimmenti, A., Khazaal, Y., Maurage, P., & Heeren, A. (2015). Are we overpathologizing everyday life? A tenable blueprint for behavioral addiction research. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 4(3), 119123. doi:10.1556/2006.4.2015.009

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Bowman, N. (2015). The rise (and refinement) of moral panic. In R. Kowert & T. Quandt (Eds.), The video game debate: Unraveling the physical, social, and psychological effects of digital games (pp. 2238). New York, NY: Routledge.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • DeGrove, F., Breuer, J., Chen, V., Quandt, T., Ratan, R., & Van Looy, J. (2017). Validating the digital games motivation scale for comparative research between countries. Communication Research Reports, 34(1), 3747. doi:10.1080/08824096.2016.1250070

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Elson, M., Breuer, J., Ivory, J. D., & Quandt, T. (2014). More than stories with buttons: Narrative, mechanics, and context as determinants of player experience in digital games. Journal of Communication, 64(3), 521542. doi:10.1111/jcom.12096

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Ferguson, C. J., & Beaver, K. M. (2016). Who’s afraid of the big, bad video game? Media-based moral panics. In D. Chadee (Ed.), Psychology of fear, crime, and the media: International perspectives (pp. 240252). Abingdon and New York: Routledge.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Gentile, D. A., Hyekyung, C., Liau, A., Sim, T., Li, D., Fung, D., & Khoo, A. (2011). Pathological video game use among youths: A two-year longitudinal study. Pediatrics, 127, 319329. doi:10.1542/peds.2010-1353

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Griffiths, M. D., Kuss, D. J., & Demetrovics, Z (2014). Social networking addiction: An overview of preliminary findings. In K. Rosenberg & L. Feder (Eds.), Behavioral addictions: Criteria, evidence, and treatment (pp. 119141). New York, NY: Elsevier.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Griffiths, M. D., van Rooij, A., Kardefelt-Winther, D., Starcevic, V., Király, O., Pallesen, S., Müller, K., Dreier, M., Carras, M., Prause, N., King, D. L., Aboujaoude, E., Kuss, D. J., Pontes, H. M., Lopez Fernandez, O., Nagygyorgy, K., Achab, S., Billieux, J., Quandt, T., Carbonell, X., Ferguson, C. J., Hoff, R. A., Derevensky, J., Haagsma, M. C., Delfabbro, P., Coulson, M., Hussain, Z., & Demetrovics, Z. (2016). Working towards an international consensus on criteria for assessing Internet Gaming Disorder: A critical commentary on Petry et al. (2014). Addiction, 111(1), 167175. doi:10.1111/add.13057

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Haagsma, M. C., King, D. L., Pieterse, M. E., & Peters, O. (2013). Assessing problematic video gaming using the theory of planned behavior: A longitudinal study of Dutch young people. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 11, 172185. doi:10.1007/s11469-012-9407-0

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • King, D. L., Delfabbro, P. H., & Griffiths, M. D. (2013). Trajectories of problem video gaming among adult regular gamers: An 18-month longitudinal study. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 16, 7276. doi:10.1089/cyber.2012.0062

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Kuss, D., Griffiths, M. D., & Pontes, H. (2017). Chaos and confusion in DSM-5 diagnosis of Internet Gaming Disorder: Issues, concerns, and recommendations for clarity in the field. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 17. doi:10.1556/2006.5.2016.062

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Petry, N. M., Rehbein, F., Gentile, D. A., Lemmens, J. S., Rumpf, H.-J., Mößle, T., Bischof, G., Tao, R., Fung, D. S., Borges, G., Auriacombe, M., González Ibáñez, A., Tam, P., & O’Brien, C. P. (2014). An international consensus for assessing Internet gaming disorder using the new DSM-5 approach. Addiction, 109(9), 13991406. doi:10.1111/add.12457

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Scharkow, M., Festl, R., & Quandt, T. (2014). Longitudinal patterns of problematic computer game use among adolescents and adults – A 2-year panel study. Addiction, 109(11), 19101917. doi:10.1111/add.12662

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Scharkow, M., Festl, R., Vogelgesang, J., & Quandt, T. (2014). Beyond the “core-gamer”: Genre preferences and gratifications in computer games. Computers in Human Behavior, 44, 293298. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.11.020

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Van Rooij, A. J., Schoenmakers, T. M., Vermulst, A. A., Van Den Eijnden, R. J. J. M., & Van De Mheen, D. (2011). Online video game addiction: Identification of addicted adolescent gamers. Addiction, 106(1), 205212. doi:10.1111/j.1360-0443.2010.03104.x

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Andreassen, C. S., Billieux, J., Griffiths, M. D., Kuss, D. J., Demetrovics, Z., Mazzoni, E., & Pallesen, S. (2016). The relationship between addictive use of social media and video games and symptoms of psychiatric disorders: A large-scale cross-sectional study. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 30(2), 252262. doi:10.1037/adb0000160

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Andreassen, C. S., Torsheim, T., Brunborg, G. S., & Pallesen, S. (2012). Development of a Facebook addiction scale. Psychological Reports, 110, 501517. doi:10.2466/02.09.18.PR0.110.2.501-517

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Billieux, J., Schimmenti, A., Khazaal, Y., Maurage, P., & Heeren, A. (2015). Are we overpathologizing everyday life? A tenable blueprint for behavioral addiction research. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 4(3), 119123. doi:10.1556/2006.4.2015.009

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Bowman, N. (2015). The rise (and refinement) of moral panic. In R. Kowert & T. Quandt (Eds.), The video game debate: Unraveling the physical, social, and psychological effects of digital games (pp. 2238). New York, NY: Routledge.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • DeGrove, F., Breuer, J., Chen, V., Quandt, T., Ratan, R., & Van Looy, J. (2017). Validating the digital games motivation scale for comparative research between countries. Communication Research Reports, 34(1), 3747. doi:10.1080/08824096.2016.1250070

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Elson, M., Breuer, J., Ivory, J. D., & Quandt, T. (2014). More than stories with buttons: Narrative, mechanics, and context as determinants of player experience in digital games. Journal of Communication, 64(3), 521542. doi:10.1111/jcom.12096

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Ferguson, C. J., & Beaver, K. M. (2016). Who’s afraid of the big, bad video game? Media-based moral panics. In D. Chadee (Ed.), Psychology of fear, crime, and the media: International perspectives (pp. 240252). Abingdon and New York: Routledge.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Gentile, D. A., Hyekyung, C., Liau, A., Sim, T., Li, D., Fung, D., & Khoo, A. (2011). Pathological video game use among youths: A two-year longitudinal study. Pediatrics, 127, 319329. doi:10.1542/peds.2010-1353

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Griffiths, M. D., Kuss, D. J., & Demetrovics, Z (2014). Social networking addiction: An overview of preliminary findings. In K. Rosenberg & L. Feder (Eds.), Behavioral addictions: Criteria, evidence, and treatment (pp. 119141). New York, NY: Elsevier.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Griffiths, M. D., van Rooij, A., Kardefelt-Winther, D., Starcevic, V., Király, O., Pallesen, S., Müller, K., Dreier, M., Carras, M., Prause, N., King, D. L., Aboujaoude, E., Kuss, D. J., Pontes, H. M., Lopez Fernandez, O., Nagygyorgy, K., Achab, S., Billieux, J., Quandt, T., Carbonell, X., Ferguson, C. J., Hoff, R. A., Derevensky, J., Haagsma, M. C., Delfabbro, P., Coulson, M., Hussain, Z., & Demetrovics, Z. (2016). Working towards an international consensus on criteria for assessing Internet Gaming Disorder: A critical commentary on Petry et al. (2014). Addiction, 111(1), 167175. doi:10.1111/add.13057

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Haagsma, M. C., King, D. L., Pieterse, M. E., & Peters, O. (2013). Assessing problematic video gaming using the theory of planned behavior: A longitudinal study of Dutch young people. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 11, 172185. doi:10.1007/s11469-012-9407-0

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • King, D. L., Delfabbro, P. H., & Griffiths, M. D. (2013). Trajectories of problem video gaming among adult regular gamers: An 18-month longitudinal study. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 16, 7276. doi:10.1089/cyber.2012.0062

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Kuss, D., Griffiths, M. D., & Pontes, H. (2017). Chaos and confusion in DSM-5 diagnosis of Internet Gaming Disorder: Issues, concerns, and recommendations for clarity in the field. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 17. doi:10.1556/2006.5.2016.062

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Petry, N. M., Rehbein, F., Gentile, D. A., Lemmens, J. S., Rumpf, H.-J., Mößle, T., Bischof, G., Tao, R., Fung, D. S., Borges, G., Auriacombe, M., González Ibáñez, A., Tam, P., & O’Brien, C. P. (2014). An international consensus for assessing Internet gaming disorder using the new DSM-5 approach. Addiction, 109(9), 13991406. doi:10.1111/add.12457

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Scharkow, M., Festl, R., & Quandt, T. (2014). Longitudinal patterns of problematic computer game use among adolescents and adults – A 2-year panel study. Addiction, 109(11), 19101917. doi:10.1111/add.12662

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Scharkow, M., Festl, R., Vogelgesang, J., & Quandt, T. (2014). Beyond the “core-gamer”: Genre preferences and gratifications in computer games. Computers in Human Behavior, 44, 293298. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.11.020

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Van Rooij, A. J., Schoenmakers, T. M., Vermulst, A. A., Van Den Eijnden, R. J. J. M., & Van De Mheen, D. (2011). Online video game addiction: Identification of addicted adolescent gamers. Addiction, 106(1), 205212. doi:10.1111/j.1360-0443.2010.03104.x

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
The author instruction is available in PDF.
Please, download the file from HERE

Dr. Zsolt Demetrovics
Institute of Psychology, ELTE Eötvös Loránd University
Address: Izabella u. 46. H-1064 Budapest, Hungary
Phone: +36-1-461-2681
E-mail: jba@ppk.elte.hu

Indexing and Abstracting Services:

  • Web of Science [Science Citation Index Expanded (also known as SciSearch®)
  • Journal Citation Reports/Science Edition
  • Social Sciences Citation Index®
  • Journal Citation Reports/ Social Sciences Edition
  • Current Contents®/Social and Behavioral Sciences
  • EBSCO
  • GoogleScholar
  • PsychInfo
  • PubMed Central
  • SCOPUS
  • Medline
  • CABI
2020  
Total Cites 4024
WoS
Journal
Impact Factor
6,756
Rank by Psychiatry (SSCI) 12/143 (Q1)
Impact Factor Psychiatry 19/156 (Q1)
Impact Factor 6,052
without
Journal Self Cites
5 Year 8,735
Impact Factor
Journal  1,48
Citation Indicator  
Rank by Journal  Psychiatry 24/250 (Q1)
Citation Indicator   
Citable 86
Items
Total 74
Articles
Total 12
Reviews
Scimago 47
H-index
Scimago 2,265
Journal Rank
Scimago Clinical Psychology Q1
Quartile Score Psychiatry and Mental Health Q1
  Medicine (miscellaneous) Q1
Scopus 3593/367=9,8
Scite Score  
Scopus Clinical Psychology 7/283 (Q1)
Scite Score Rank Psychiatry and Mental Health 22/502 (Q1)
Scopus 2,026
SNIP  
Days from  38
sumbission  
to 1st decision  
Days from  37
acceptance  
to publication  
Acceptance 31%
Rate  

2019  
Total Cites
WoS
2 184
Impact Factor 5,143
Impact Factor
without
Journal Self Cites
4,346
5 Year
Impact Factor
5,758
Immediacy
Index
0,587
Citable
Items
75
Total
Articles
67
Total
Reviews
8
Cited
Half-Life
3,3
Citing
Half-Life
6,8
Eigenfactor
Score
0,00597
Article Influence
Score
1,447
% Articles
in
Citable Items
89,33
Normalized
Eigenfactor
0,7294
Average
IF
Percentile
87,923
Scimago
H-index
37
Scimago
Journal Rank
1,767
Scopus
Scite Score
2540/376=6,8
Scopus
Scite Score Rank
Cllinical Psychology 16/275 (Q1)
Medicine (miscellenous) 31/219 (Q1)
Psychiatry and Mental Health 47/506 (Q1)
Scopus
SNIP
1,441
Acceptance
Rate
32%

 

Journal of Behavioral Addictions
Publication Model Gold Open Access
Submission Fee none
Article Processing Charge 850 EUR/article
Printed Color Illustrations 40 EUR (or 10 000 HUF) + VAT / piece
Regional discounts on country of the funding agency World Bank Lower-middle-income economies: 50%
World Bank Low-income economies: 100%
Further Discounts Editorial Board / Advisory Board members: 50%
Corresponding authors, affiliated to an EISZ member institution subscribing to the journal package of Akadémiai Kiadó: 100%
Subscription Information Gold Open Access
Purchase per Title  

Journal of Behavioral Addictions
Language English
Size A4
Year of
Foundation
2011
Publication
Programme
2021 Volume 10
Volumes
per Year
1
Issues
per Year
4
Founder Eötvös Loránd Tudományegyetem
Founder's
Address
H-1053 Budapest, Hungary Egyetem tér 1-3.
Publisher Akadémiai Kiadó
Publisher's
Address
H-1117 Budapest, Hungary 1516 Budapest, PO Box 245.
Responsible
Publisher
Chief Executive Officer, Akadémiai Kiadó
ISSN 2062-5871 (Print)
ISSN 2063-5303 (Online)

Senior editors

Editor(s)-in-Chief: Zsolt DEMETROVICS

Assistant Editor(s): Csilla ÁGOSTON

Associate Editors

  • Judit BALÁZS (ELTE Eötvös Loránd University, Hungary)
  • Joel BILLIEUX (University of Lausanne, Switzerland)
  • Matthias BRAND (University of Duisburg-Essen, Germany)
  • Anneke GOUDRIAAN (University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands)
  • Daniel KING (Flinders University, Australia)
  • Ludwig KRAUS (IFT Institute for Therapy Research, Germany)
  • H. N. Alexander LOGEMANN (ELTE Eötvös Loránd University, Hungary)
  • Anikó MARÁZ (Humboldt University of Berlin, Germany)
  • Astrid MÜLLER (Hannover Medical School, Germany)
  • Marc N. POTENZA (Yale University, USA)
  • Hans-Jurgen RUMPF (University of Lübeck, Germany)
  • Attila SZABÓ (ELTE Eötvös Loránd University, Hungary)
  • Róbert URBÁN (ELTE Eötvös Loránd University, Hungary)
  • Aviv M. WEINSTEIN (Ariel University, Israel)

Editorial Board

  • Max W. ABBOTT (Auckland University of Technology, New Zealand)
  • Elias N. ABOUJAOUDE (Stanford University School of Medicine, USA)
  • Hojjat ADELI (Ohio State University, USA)
  • Alex BALDACCHINO (University of Dundee, United Kingdom)
  • Alex BLASZCZYNSKI (University of Sidney, Australia)
  • Kenneth BLUM (University of Florida, USA)
  • Henrietta BOWDEN-JONES (Imperial College, United Kingdom)
  • Beáta BÖTHE (University of Montreal, Canada)
  • Wim VAN DEN BRINK (University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands)
  • Gerhard BÜHRINGER (Technische Universität Dresden, Germany)
  • Sam-Wook CHOI (Eulji University, Republic of Korea)
  • Damiaan DENYS (University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands)
  • Jeffrey L. DEREVENSKY (McGill University, Canada)
  • Naomi FINEBERG (University of Hertfordshire, United Kingdom)
  • Marie GRALL-BRONNEC (University Hospital of Nantes, France)
  • Jon E. GRANT (University of Minnesota, USA)
  • Mark GRIFFITHS (Nottingham Trent University, United Kingdom)
  • Heather HAUSENBLAS (Jacksonville University, USA)
  • Tobias HAYER (University of Bremen, Germany)
  • Susumu HIGUCHI (National Hospital Organization Kurihama Medical and Addiction Center, Japan)
  • David HODGINS (University of Calgary, Canada)
  • Eric HOLLANDER (Albert Einstein College of Medicine, USA)
  • Jaeseung JEONG (Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, Republic of Korea)
  • Yasser KHAZAAL (Geneva University Hospital, Switzerland)
  • Orsolya KIRÁLY (Eötvös Loránd University, Hungary)
  • Emmanuel KUNTSCHE (La Trobe University, Australia)
  • Hae Kook LEE (The Catholic University of Korea, Republic of Korea)
  • Michel LEJOXEUX (Paris University, France)
  • Anikó MARÁZ (Eötvös Loránd University, Hungary)
  • Giovanni MARTINOTTI (‘Gabriele d’Annunzio’ University of Chieti-Pescara, Italy)
  • Frederick GERARD MOELLER (University of Texas, USA)
  • Daniel Thor OLASON (University of Iceland, Iceland)
  • Nancy PETRY (University of Connecticut, USA)
  • Bettina PIKÓ (University of Szeged, Hungary)
  • Afarin RAHIMI-MOVAGHAR (Teheran University of Medical Sciences, Iran)
  • József RÁCZ (Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Hungary)
  • Rory C. REID (University of California Los Angeles, USA)
  • Marcantanio M. SPADA (London South Bank University, United Kingdom)
  • Daniel SPRITZER (Study Group on Technological Addictions, Brazil)
  • Dan J. STEIN (University of Cape Town, South Africa)
  • Sherry H. STEWART (Dalhousie University, Canada)
  • Attila SZABÓ (Eötvös Loránd University, Hungary)
  • Ferenc TÚRY (Semmelweis University, Hungary)
  • Alfred UHL (Austrian Federal Health Institute, Austria)
  • Johan VANDERLINDEN (University Psychiatric Center K.U.Leuven, Belgium)
  • Alexander E. VOISKOUNSKY (Moscow State University, Russia)
  • Kimberly YOUNG (Center for Internet Addiction, USA)

 

Monthly Content Usage

Abstract Views Full Text Views PDF Downloads
May 2021 0 57 27
Jun 2021 0 34 24
Jul 2021 0 37 12
Aug 2021 0 21 8
Sep 2021 0 18 7
Oct 2021 0 29 22
Nov 2021 0 0 0