Authors:
Espen Aarseth Center for Computer Games Research, IT University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark

Search for other papers by Espen Aarseth in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Anthony M. Bean Department of Psychology, Framingham State University, Framingham, MA, USA

Search for other papers by Anthony M. Bean in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Huub Boonen UC-Leuven-Limburg, CAD Limburg, Hasselt, Belgium

Search for other papers by Huub Boonen in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Michelle Colder Carras Department of Mental Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA

Search for other papers by Michelle Colder Carras in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Mark Coulson Department of Psychology, Middlesex University, Hendon, London, UK

Search for other papers by Mark Coulson in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Dimitri Das CAD Limburg, Hasselt, Belgium

Search for other papers by Dimitri Das in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Jory Deleuze Psychology Department, Université Catholique de Louvain (UCL), Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium

Search for other papers by Jory Deleuze in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Elza Dunkels Department of Applied Educational Science, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden

Search for other papers by Elza Dunkels in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Johan Edman Centre for Social Research on Alcohol and Drugs (SoRAD) & Department of Sociology, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden

Search for other papers by Johan Edman in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Christopher J. Ferguson Department of Psychology, Stetson University, DeLand, FL, USA

Search for other papers by Christopher J. Ferguson in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Maria C. Haagsma GGZ Momentum, Veldhoven, The Netherlands

Search for other papers by Maria C. Haagsma in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Karin Helmersson Bergmark Department of Sociology, Stockholm University, Sweden

Search for other papers by Karin Helmersson Bergmark in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Zaheer Hussain Department of Life Sciences, University of Derby, UK

Search for other papers by Zaheer Hussain in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Jeroen Jansz Department of Media & Communication, ERMeCC, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

Search for other papers by Jeroen Jansz in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Daniel Kardefelt-Winther Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden

Search for other papers by Daniel Kardefelt-Winther in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Lawrence Kutner Independent Researcher, USA

Search for other papers by Lawrence Kutner in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Patrick Markey Department of Psychology, Villanova University, Villanova, PA, USA

Search for other papers by Patrick Markey in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Rune Kristian Lundedal Nielsen Center for Computer Games Research, IT University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark

Search for other papers by Rune Kristian Lundedal Nielsen in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Nicole Prause Liberos, Los Angeles, USA

Search for other papers by Nicole Prause in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Andrew Przybylski Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

Search for other papers by Andrew Przybylski in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Thorsten Quandt Department of Communication, University of Münster, Münster, Germany

Search for other papers by Thorsten Quandt in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Adriano Schimmenti Psychological Sciences and Technology, UKE, Kore University of Enna, Enna, Italy

Search for other papers by Adriano Schimmenti in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Vladan Starcevic Discipline of Psychiatry, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia

Search for other papers by Vladan Starcevic in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Gabrielle Stutman Clinical Psychologist/Neuropsychologist, USA

Search for other papers by Gabrielle Stutman in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Jan Van Looy Department of Communication Sciences, imec-MICT-Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium

Search for other papers by Jan Van Looy in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
, and
Antonius J. Van Rooij Department of Communication Sciences, imec-MICT-Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium

Search for other papers by Antonius J. Van Rooij in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
Open access

Concerns about problematic gaming behaviors deserve our full attention. However, we claim that it is far from clear that these problems can or should be attributed to a new disorder. The empirical basis for a Gaming Disorder proposal, such as in the new ICD-11, suffers from fundamental issues. Our main concerns are the low quality of the research base, the fact that the current operationalization leans too heavily on substance use and gambling criteria, and the lack of consensus on symptomatology and assessment of problematic gaming. The act of formalizing this disorder, even as a proposal, has negative medical, scientific, public-health, societal, and human rights fallout that should be considered. Of particular concern are moral panics around the harm of video gaming. They might result in premature application of diagnosis in the medical community and the treatment of abundant false-positive cases, especially for children and adolescents. Second, research will be locked into a confirmatory approach, rather than an exploration of the boundaries of normal versus pathological. Third, the healthy majority of gamers will be affected negatively. We expect that the premature inclusion of Gaming Disorder as a diagnosis in ICD-11 will cause significant stigma to the millions of children who play video games as a part of a normal, healthy life. At this point, suggesting formal diagnoses and categories is premature: the ICD-11 proposal for Gaming Disorder should be removed to avoid a waste of public health resources as well as to avoid causing harm to healthy video gamers around the world.

Abstract

Concerns about problematic gaming behaviors deserve our full attention. However, we claim that it is far from clear that these problems can or should be attributed to a new disorder. The empirical basis for a Gaming Disorder proposal, such as in the new ICD-11, suffers from fundamental issues. Our main concerns are the low quality of the research base, the fact that the current operationalization leans too heavily on substance use and gambling criteria, and the lack of consensus on symptomatology and assessment of problematic gaming. The act of formalizing this disorder, even as a proposal, has negative medical, scientific, public-health, societal, and human rights fallout that should be considered. Of particular concern are moral panics around the harm of video gaming. They might result in premature application of diagnosis in the medical community and the treatment of abundant false-positive cases, especially for children and adolescents. Second, research will be locked into a confirmatory approach, rather than an exploration of the boundaries of normal versus pathological. Third, the healthy majority of gamers will be affected negatively. We expect that the premature inclusion of Gaming Disorder as a diagnosis in ICD-11 will cause significant stigma to the millions of children who play video games as a part of a normal, healthy life. At this point, suggesting formal diagnoses and categories is premature: the ICD-11 proposal for Gaming Disorder should be removed to avoid a waste of public health resources as well as to avoid causing harm to healthy video gamers around the world.

This debate paper is a copy of a letter that the authors sent to the WHO Topic advisory group on Mental Health under the subject header “Gaming Disorder in ICD-11: Letter of concern” on November 9, 2016. It reflects the personal opinion of the authors involved. The content of this debate paper does not necessarily reflect the official opinion of their respective institutions.

Regarding the Gaming Disorder Proposal

We are a group of scholars interested in the role of new media in society, with a special interest in technologies such as video games, the Internet, and social media. Some of us have worked in particular on the problematic aspects of technology use; our group includes scholars who work on the epidemiology of healthy and unhealthy use of new media, the assessment and treatment of problematic use, as well as potential protective factors. We also work more broadly in related areas such as children’s rights in a digital age, on advancing global access to online opportunities and fostering digital citizenship, as well a range of other positive aspects related to the use of new media that are important in the lives of children and adults today. Other signatories work in a variety of disciplines within the social and natural sciences, with a common interest in research on addiction and mental health. We are independent scholars, unaffiliated with any media industry and receiving no funding from them. Many of us have published research that debates the role of video gaming in mental health and the necessity of a new diagnosis/disorder related to problematic video gaming, and four of us wrote our doctoral dissertations specifically on the subject of problematic gaming. Thus, we were keenly interested to hear about the WHO ICD-11 proposal for a new category named “Gaming Disorder” (WHO, 2016a, 2016b, 2016c).

Concerns about problematic gaming behaviors deserve our full attention. Some gamers do experience serious problems as a consequence of the time spent playing video games. However, we claim that it is far from clear that these problems can or should be attributed to a new disorder, and the empirical basis for such a proposal suffers from several fundamental issues. Thus, we believe that, at this point, suggesting formal diagnoses and categories is premature and the proposal should be removed to avoid a waste of resources in research, health, and the public domain. Removing the proposal would also prevent significant violations of children’s rights to play and participate in digital environments, preserving their right to freedom of expression.

Our main concerns are the following:

  1. 1. The quality of the research base is low. The field is fraught with multiple controversies and confusions and there is, in fact, no consensus position among scholars. This is indicated by a recent publication on “Internet Gaming Disorder” in the journal Addiction (Griffiths et al., 2016), coauthored by 28 scholars in the field. Therefore, it is premature to include Gaming Disorder as a formal diagnosis in another classification system. Primary concerns have been noted in a number of academic publications (see references). Moreover, the size of the problem is unclear: mischievous and extreme patterns of participant responding have been shown to inflate prevalence estimates (Przybylski, 2016) and the proprietary nature of most data do not allow for systematic synthesis of the existing evidence. Furthermore, nearly all of the research in this area is purely tentative or speculative in nature as clinical studies are scarce and suffer from low sample sizes: reported patient numbers do not always correspond to clinical reality, where patients can be hard to find (Van Rooij, Schoenmakers, & van de Mheen, 2017).
  2. 2. The current operationalization of the construct leans too heavily on substance use and gambling criteria. Comparisons of gaming behavior with substance use disorders are interesting, but should not be the interpretive framework applied in the exploratory phase of understanding a problem behavior. Significant differences between behavioral and substance driven problematic behavior exist, among which are the problematic understanding of withdrawal effects or tolerance to use (Griffiths et al., 2016; Van Rooij & Prause, 2014). Applying symptoms reminiscent of substance use disorders to gaming behaviors too often pathologizes thoughts, feelings and behavior that may be normal and unproblematic in people who regularly play video games. These over pathologized symptoms may include those related to thinking a lot about games, using them to improve mood or lying to parents or significant others about the amount of time spent gaming. These criteria may therefore have low specificity, and applying criteria with low specificity may lead to many gamers being misclassified as having problems when, in fact, they experience little to no functional impairment or harm as a consequence of their gaming. Moreover, current criteria have not been properly evaluated for construct, content, or face validity, chiefly because of lack of clinical data. In addition, emerging evidence suggests that current criteria do not predict problematic outcomes from gaming particularly well because they are not aligned with the gaming context and culture.
  3. 3. There is no consensus on the symptomatology and assessment of problematic gaming. Claims regarding symptoms or predictors of problematic gaming are often based on flawed interpretations of survey data, flawed application of statistical analysis, and an over-reliance on psychometric evaluations where patient interviews are necessary to distinguish clinically significant signs and symptoms from normative behavior. This is especially relevant since a few studies involving actual patients reveal high comorbidity between gaming behavior and other disorders; in other words, it has not been convincingly demonstrated that problematic gaming is not better viewed as a coping mechanism associated with underlying problems of a different nature (Kardefelt-Winther, 2014). Misclassifying such problems as Gaming Disorder could lead to worse treatment outcomes for patients.

The act of formalizing this disorder, even as a proposal, has negative medical, scientific, public-health, societal, and rights-based fallout that should also be considered.

  1. 1. Moral panics around the harm of video gaming might result in premature application of a clinical diagnosis and the treatment of abundant false-positive cases, especially among children and adolescents. The presence of a current moral panic regarding video games may cause the medical community to take ill-considered steps, despite ambiguous research evidence, that do more harm than good to the global community of video gamers through the pathologizing of normal behavior. The video gaming community is estimated to comprise up to 80% of the population in developed countries and is rapidly growing in developing countries. Furthermore, the proposed categories are likely to be met with significant skepticism and controversy by both the scholarly community and the general public, doing harm to the reputation of the WHO and the medical community more generally. This would dramatically reduce the utility of such a diagnosis, in particular as it is not grounded in a proper evidence base. There is no substantial difference between gaming and most other forms of entertainment, and pathologizing one form of entertainment opens the door to diagnoses involving sport, dancing, eating, sex, work, exercise, gardening, etc, potentially leading to a saturation of behavioral disorders.
  2. 2. Research will be locked into a confirmatory approach rather than an exploration of the boundaries of normal versus pathological. What we have learned from the DSM-5 proposal for Internet Gaming Disorder is that many researchers will see this as formal validation of a new disorder, and stop conducting necessary validity research or developing a proper theoretical foundation for behavioral addictions. This type of research will thus provide us with more screening instruments (confirmatory thinking), instead of stimulating the fundamental validation and theoretical work (exploratory thinking) that is needed to understand the phenomenology of problematic gaming. We fear that resources may be wasted in pursuing a confirmatory path that inappropriately relies on theories of substance use disorder, which have been seemingly – but not actually – validated by the ICD-11 and DSM-5 proposals.
  3. 3. The healthy majority of gamers will be affected by stigma and perhaps even changes in policy. We expect that inclusion of gaming disorder in ICD-11 will cause significant stigma to the millions of children and adolescents who play video games as part of a normal, healthy life. Raising concerns around the dangers of video gaming is known to add tension to the parent–child relationship, which exacerbates conflict in the family and can perpetuate violence against children. Furthermore, a diagnosis may be used to control and restrict children, which has already happened in parts of the world where children are forced into “gaming-addiction camps” with military regimens designed to “treat” them for their gaming problems, without any evidence of the efficacy of such treatment and followed by reports of physical and psychological abuse. These consequences would constitute violations to several rights of children according to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which WHO as a UN agency is obliged to uphold. Finally, a disorder might detract attention from improving media literacy, parental education, and other factors that would actually contribute to the resolution of some of the issues with problematic gaming.

In brief, including this diagnosis in ICD-11 will cause significantly more harm than good. Given the immaturity of the existing evidence base, it will negatively impact the lives of millions of healthy video gamers while being unlikely to provide valid identification of true problem cases. Therefore, as stated previously, we suggest to remove the proposed category for Gaming Disorder.

Authors’ contribution

AKP, AJvR, CJF, DK-W, and MCC were directly involved in writing this debate paper. The remaining authors intellectually support the content of this debate paper.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  • Griffiths, M. D. , Van Rooij, A. J. , 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. , Nagygyörgy, 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
  • Kardefelt-Winther, D. (2014). A conceptual and methodological critique of Internet addiction research: Towards a model of compensatory Internet use. Computers in Human Behavior, 31, 351354. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2013.10.059

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Przybylski, A. K. (2016). Mischievous responding in Internet Gaming Disorder research. Peer Journal, 4, e2401. doi:10.7717/peerj.2401

  • Van Rooij, A. J. , & Prause, N. (2014). A critical review of “Internet addiction” criteria with suggestions for the future. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 3(4), 203213. doi:10.1556/JBA.3.2014.4.1

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Van Rooij, A. J. , Schoenmakers, T. M. , & van de Mheen, D. (2017). Clinical validation of the C-VAT 2.0 assessment tool for gaming disorder: A sensitivity analysis of the proposed DSM-5 criteria and the clinical characteristics of young patients with ‘video game addiction’. Addictive Behaviors, 64, 269274. doi:10.1016/j.addbeh.2015.10.018

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • WHO. (2016a). Gaming disorder. Retrieved from http://id.who.int/icd/entity/1448597234. Accessed by November 14, 2016. (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6m0iJOU1Q)

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • WHO. (2016b). Gaming disorder, predominantly offline. ICD-11 Beta Draft (Foundation). Retrieved from http://id.who.int/icd/entity/718071594. Accessed by November 14, 2016. (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6m0ibJWrS)

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • WHO. (2016c). Gaming disorder, predominantly online. Retrieved from http://id.who.int/icd/entity/338347362. Accessed by November 14, 2016. (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6m0iT11bv)

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Griffiths, M. D. , Van Rooij, A. J. , 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. , Nagygyörgy, 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
  • Kardefelt-Winther, D. (2014). A conceptual and methodological critique of Internet addiction research: Towards a model of compensatory Internet use. Computers in Human Behavior, 31, 351354. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2013.10.059

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Przybylski, A. K. (2016). Mischievous responding in Internet Gaming Disorder research. Peer Journal, 4, e2401. doi:10.7717/peerj.2401

  • Van Rooij, A. J. , & Prause, N. (2014). A critical review of “Internet addiction” criteria with suggestions for the future. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 3(4), 203213. doi:10.1556/JBA.3.2014.4.1

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Van Rooij, A. J. , Schoenmakers, T. M. , & van de Mheen, D. (2017). Clinical validation of the C-VAT 2.0 assessment tool for gaming disorder: A sensitivity analysis of the proposed DSM-5 criteria and the clinical characteristics of young patients with ‘video game addiction’. Addictive Behaviors, 64, 269274. doi:10.1016/j.addbeh.2015.10.018

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • WHO. (2016a). Gaming disorder. Retrieved from http://id.who.int/icd/entity/1448597234. Accessed by November 14, 2016. (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6m0iJOU1Q)

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • WHO. (2016b). Gaming disorder, predominantly offline. ICD-11 Beta Draft (Foundation). Retrieved from http://id.who.int/icd/entity/718071594. Accessed by November 14, 2016. (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6m0ibJWrS)

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • WHO. (2016c). Gaming disorder, predominantly online. Retrieved from http://id.who.int/icd/entity/338347362. Accessed by November 14, 2016. (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6m0iT11bv)

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Collapse
  • Expand
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
  • PsycINFO
  • PubMed Central
  • SCOPUS
  • Medline
  • CABI
  • CABELLS Journalytics

2022  
Web of Science  
Total Cites
WoS
5713
Journal Impact Factor 7.8
Rank by Impact Factor

Psychiatry (SCIE) 18/155
Psychiatry (SSCI) 13/144

Impact Factor
without
Journal Self Cites
7.2
5 Year
Impact Factor
8.9
Journal Citation Indicator 1.42
Rank by Journal Citation Indicator

Psychiatry 35/264

Scimago  
Scimago
H-index
69
Scimago
Journal Rank
1.918
Scimago Quartile Score Clinical Psychology Q1
Medicine (miscellaneous) Q1
Psychiatry and Mental Health Q1
Scopus  
Scopus
Cite Score
11.1
Scopus
Cite Score Rank
Clinical Psychology 10/292 (96th PCTL)
Psychiatry and Mental Health 30/531 (94th PCTL)
Medicine (miscellaneous) 25/309 (92th PCTL)
Scopus
SNIP
1.966

 

 
2021  
Web of Science  
Total Cites
WoS
5223
Journal Impact Factor 7,772
Rank by Impact Factor Psychiatry SCIE 26/155
Psychiatry SSCI 19/142
Impact Factor
without
Journal Self Cites
7,130
5 Year
Impact Factor
9,026
Journal Citation Indicator 1,39
Rank by Journal Citation Indicator

Psychiatry 34/257

Scimago  
Scimago
H-index
56
Scimago
Journal Rank
1,951
Scimago Quartile Score Clinical Psychology (Q1)
Medicine (miscellaneous) (Q1)
Psychiatry and Mental Health (Q1)
Scopus  
Scopus
Cite Score
11,5
Scopus
CIte Score Rank
Clinical Psychology 5/292 (D1)
Psychiatry and Mental Health 20/529 (D1)
Medicine (miscellaneous) 17/276 (D1)
Scopus
SNIP
2,184

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
submission  
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 990 EUR/article for articles submitted after 30 April 2023 (850 EUR for articles submitted prior to this date)
Regional discounts on country of the funding agency World Bank Lower-middle-income economies: 50%
World Bank Low-income economies: 100%
Further Discounts Corresponding authors, affiliated to an EISZ member institution subscribing to the journal package of Akadémiai Kiadó: 100%.
Subscription Information Gold Open Access

Journal of Behavioral Addictions
Language English
Size A4
Year of
Foundation
2011
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

  • Stephanie ANTONS (Universitat Duisburg-Essen, Germany)
  • Joel BILLIEUX (University of Lausanne, Switzerland)
  • Beáta BŐTHE (University of Montreal, Canada)
  • Matthias BRAND (University of Duisburg-Essen, Germany)
  • Ruth J. van HOLST (Amsterdam UMC, The Netherlands)
  • Daniel KING (Flinders University, Australia)
  • Gyöngyi KÖKÖNYEI (ELTE Eötvös Loránd University, Hungary)
  • Ludwig KRAUS (IFT Institute for Therapy Research, Germany)
  • Marc N. POTENZA (Yale University, USA)
  • Hans-Jurgen RUMPF (University of Lübeck, Germany)

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)
  • Judit BALÁZS (ELTE Eötvös Loránd University, Hungary)
  • Kenneth BLUM (University of Florida, USA)
  • Henrietta BOWDEN-JONES (Imperial College, United Kingdom)
  • 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)
  • Anneke GOUDRIAAN (University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands)
  • 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 (Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Germany)
  • Giovanni MARTINOTTI (‘Gabriele d’Annunzio’ University of Chieti-Pescara, Italy)
  • Astrid MÜLLER  (Hannover Medical School, Germany)
  • 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)
  • Róbert URBÁN  (ELTE Eötvös Loránd University, Hungary)
  • Johan VANDERLINDEN (University Psychiatric Center K.U.Leuven, Belgium)
  • Alexander E. VOISKOUNSKY (Moscow State University, Russia)
  • Aviv M. WEINSTEIN  (Ariel University, Israel)
  • Kimberly YOUNG (Center for Internet Addiction, USA)

 

Monthly Content Usage

Abstract Views Full Text Views PDF Downloads
Jun 2023 0 478 284
Jul 2023 0 426 238
Aug 2023 0 457 273
Sep 2023 0 411 228
Oct 2023 0 647 474
Nov 2023 0 496 328
Dec 2023 0 0 0