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

4 - The peer review process

Peer review of final outputs that are to be published externally is an important part of good practice in the dissemination of research findings. The peer review is about assessing if the research was conducted according to the principles and standards of good research practice as laid out in this framework. It is not about evaluating or commenting on the findings.

The peer review will be carried out for the final output(s) of a research project and will consider a range of questions, which can be found in our peer review checklist. Any output drafts submitted for peer review should be in copy edited, ready to publish format.

Once the final research project output is ready, it will be peer reviewed by our peer review trained staff who will not have been previously involved with the research project but will have a basic understanding of the project and will assess the project outputs using the prompts on the peer review checklist. The peer reviewer(s) will take note of any concerns including if there is any additional information that should be included. The annotated draft should then be returned to the Research Manager with comments and feedback within 5 to 7 working days unless otherwise agreed. The Research Manager should consider all the comments made by the peer reviewer(s). If they decide not to take a comment on board, a rationale for this should be provided. Once any required revisions have been carried out, a second draft may be sent for a second light touch review. An independent peer reviewer or a peer reviewer from one of our advisory panels may be involved in the peer review if deemed necessary.

For external research projects covered by section 6, the external research lead or academic partner is responsible for peer review if required.

Previous section
Ethical approval for gambling research with human participants - Research Governance Framework Next section
Roles and responsibilities - Research Governance Framework

---

Last updated: 30 April 2026

Show updates to this content

No changes to show.