English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

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.

Stepping back to advance: Why IGD needs an intensified debate instead of a consensus