Morkevičiūtė and Endriulaitienė (Int J Ment Health Addict 21(5):13–23) provided an interesting and important overview of research on work addiction/workaholism since 2007. In their conclusions, they suggest that “workaholism” is a separate phenomenon from “work addiction.” However, this conclusion is (i) inconsistent with the data on which they base their analyses and (ii) other conclusions that they draw from these analyses. The current paper examines these inconsistencies and explains the sources of confusion. Work addiction and workaholism are investigated both by clinical researchers and organizational scholars. The limited exchange of expertise between these two major frameworks may cause misunderstandings. Addictions are complex biological, psychological, social, and cultural phenomena. Behavioral addictions are defined as behavioral patterns and, similarly to other mental disorders, as syndromes. They manifest as different symptoms, including behavioral, emotional, and cognitive. Components of excessive and compulsive working are defined as indicators or symptoms of addiction and not as different conceptualizations of workaholism. Treating different facets of work addiction by Morkevičiūtė and Endriulaitienė as different conceptualizations of it leads to theoretical and terminological confusion. The current paper analyzes these problems as they emerge on the boundaries of clinical and organizational frameworks in the work of different authors.

Morkevičiūtė 和 Endriulaitienė（Int J Ment Health Addict 21(5):13-23）对 2007 年以来的工作成瘾/工作狂研究进行了有趣且重要的概述。在他们的结论中，他们认为“工作狂”是一种独立于“工作狂”的现象。工作成瘾。” 然而，这个结论（i）与他们分析所依据的数据不一致，以及（ii）他们从这些分析中得出的其他结论。本文研究了这些不一致之处并解释了混乱的根源。临床研究人员和组织学者都对工作成瘾和工作狂进行了研究。这两个主要框架之间的专业知识交流有限可能会引起误解。成瘾是复杂的生物、心理、社会和文化现象。行为成瘾被定义为行为模式，与其他精神障碍类似，被定义为综合症。它们表现为不同的症状，包括行为、情绪和认知。过度和强迫性工作的组成部分被定义为成瘾的指标或症状，而不是工作狂的不同概念。Morkevičiūtė 和 Endriulaitienė 将工作成瘾的不同方面视为不同的概念化，导致理论和术语上的混乱。当前的论文分析了不同作者工作中临床和组织框架边界上出现的这些问题。