Standards

Research governance framework 

The Gambling Commission's Research Governance Framework.

---

Published
30 April 2026

Last updated
30 April 2026 - Changes

Document actions
Print or save (opens in new tab)

Contents

• Research governance framework 

---

• Introduction
• • Research at the Gambling Commission
  • The Research Governance Framework
  • Developing and updating the research governance framework
• Ethical gambling research
• • Introduction to ethical gambling research
  • Core research principles and guidelines for ethical gambling research
  • Research involving AI
  • Conflicts of interest
  • Research misconduct
• Ethical approval for gambling research with human participants
• • Which projects require ethical approval
  • General considerations for ethical approval in gambling research
  • The ethical approval process
• The peer review process
• Roles and responsibilities
• Other external research involvement
• Research data governance
• • General principles of research data governance and research data safeguarding
  • What documents are required?
  • Data sharing
• Dissemination of research
• Monitoring, review and data corrections
• Appendices
• • Appendix 1: Ethics Checklist for projects requiring full Ethical Approval
  • Appendix 2: Data management plan checklist checklist
  • Appendix 3: Peer review checklist
  • Appendix 4: Research misconduct

Appendix 4: Research misconduct

The Gambling Commission adopts the definition of Research Misconduct as stated in The Concordat to Support Research Integrity (opens in new tab):

Questionable research practices (QRPs): QRPs refer to minor infractions or research practices, including avoidable errors, which fall short of the definition of intentional research misconduct. They may arise due to a lack of knowledge or attention to detail, negligence, or deliberate action, and may occur where there is no evident intention to deceive.

Research misconduct: research misconduct constitutes the behaviours and deliberate actions that fall short of the research principles and guidelines outlined in this framework regarding the honesty, rigour, transparency, care and respect and accountability of the research. Misconduct can occur at any point in the research lifecycle. This may include:

• fabrication (of results, any aspect of the research, documentation, participant consent and so on)
• falsification (inappropriately manipulating and/or selecting research processes, equipment, data, consent and so on)
• plagiarism (using other people’s ideas, intellectual property or work (written or otherwise) without acknowledgement or permission)
• failure to meet legal, ethical and professional obligations, for example:
• not observing legal, ethical, and other requirements for human research participants
• breach of duty of care for humans involved in research whether deliberately, recklessly, or by gross negligence, including failure to obtain appropriate informed consent
• misuse of personal data, including inappropriate disclosures of the identity of research participants and other breaches of confidentiality
• improper conduct in peer review of research proposals, results, or manuscripts submitted for publication. This includes: failure to disclose conflicts of interest; misappropriation of the content of material; and breach of confidentiality or abuse of material provided in confidence for the purposes of peer review.
• misrepresentation of:
• data, including suppression of relevant results and/or data or knowingly, recklessly, or by gross negligence presenting a flawed interpretation of data
• involvement, including inappropriate claims to authorship or attribution of work and denial of authorship/attribution to persons who have made an appropriate contribution
• interests, including failure to declare competing interests
• qualifications, experience, and/or credentials.
• improper dealing with allegations of misconduct: failing to address possible infringements, such as attempts to cover up misconduct and reprisals against whistle-blowers, or failing to adhere appropriately to agreed procedures in the investigation of alleged research misconduct accepted as a condition of funding. Improper dealing with allegations of misconduct includes the inappropriate censoring of parties through the use of legal instruments, such as non-disclosure agreements.

Honest errors and differences in, for example, research methodology or interpretations, do not constitute research misconduct.

Previous section
Appendix 3: Peer review checklist

---

Last updated: 30 April 2026

Show updates to this content

No changes to show.