Aim and Scope

The scientific and practical Journal “Nuclear Safety” provides the professional community and a wide audience with authoritative information on modern research trends in the fields related to nuclear engineering (nuclear power plants and fuel, radiation safety and ecology, etc.), operation, social and economic aspects of the development of nuclear industry facilities location territories. The most important objectives of the Journal are generalization of scientific research and practical experience in the field of nuclear, radiation and environmental safety; publication of the results of advanced developments and achievements of Russian and foreign scientists, national and international research teams in the design, equipment manufacturing and operation of nuclear industry facilities.

The Journal publishes original articles, results of fundamental research to study a wide range of global nuclear safety issues.

The Journal accepts original articles, reviews, descriptions of experiments, results of research and development work focused on the study of a wide range of global nuclear safety issues.

The Journal accepts submissions from graduate students, postgraduate students, doctoral students, specialists and experts in this sphere.

Section Policies

NUCLEAR, RADIATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

DESIGN, MANUFACTURE AND COMMISSIONING COMMISSIONING OF EQUIPMENT NUCLEAR INDUSTRY FACILITIES

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

OPERATION OF FACILITIES NUCLEAR INDUSTRY

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

SAFETY CULTURE AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASPECTS DEVELOPMENT OF PLACEMENT TERRITORIES NUCLEAR INDUSTRY FACILITIES

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

Peer Review Process

The Editorial Board of the “Nuclear Safety” Journal adheres to the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) when working with manuscripts, reviewers, and organizing the review process.

Review Type

All manuscripts submitted to the “Nuclear Safety” Journal undergo mandatory double-blind peer review. This means that neither the author nor the reviewer knows each other’s names or affiliations, and all correspondence is conducted through the editor of the “Nuclear Safety” Journal. Each manuscript is sent to at least two experts.

Review Period

The review process in the “Nuclear Safety” Journal takes from 1 to 6 months on average. This period includes the initial consideration of the manuscript, selection of reviewers, preparation of the review, revision by the author, re-review, and engagement of additional experts if needed.

Review Process

The decision on the choice of reviewer for the “Nuclear Safety” Journal is made by the editor. Each article is sent to at least two experts. If different opinions are received about the manuscript, a third expert may be involved. The editor of the “Nuclear Safety” Journal can convey one of the following decisions to the author regarding the manuscript:

Accept for publication. In this case, the manuscript will be included in one of the regular issues of the journal and passed to the editor for further processing. The author will be notified of the publication date.

 Accept for publication after addressing the reviewer’s comments. The author will be asked to make the changes suggested by the reviewer within a week. If the deficiencies are addressed or a justified refusal to make changes is provided, the manuscript is accepted for publication.

Accept for publication after addressing the reviewer’s comments and re-review. The author will be asked to make the changes suggested by the reviewer within two weeks. The manuscript will be re-reviewed. The author will receive the final decision on the manuscript within 30 days.

Reject. The author will be sent a reasoned refusal for publication. A rejection does not prohibit authors from submitting manuscripts to the “Nuclear Safety” Journal in the future, but if the publication is rejected due to gross violations by the author, the Editor-in-Chief may decide to blacklist the author. In that case, other articles by this author will not be considered.

“Nuclear Safety” Journal provides for three rounds of review. This means that after the first decision for revision, the author has two attempts to make changes according to the reviewer’s recommendations or provide a justified refusal. If after the third round of review the expert still has comments, the journal editor will suggest the author consider publishing in another journal or resubmit the article with the necessary changes in six months.

If the author does not plan to revise the article, they should notify the journal’s editorial office. Work on the article will be terminated.

If the author has a conflict of interest with an expert who might become a reviewer of the manuscript, they must notify the journal’s editor. The editors of the “Nuclear Safety” Journal will take this into account when selecting a reviewer.

During the manuscript review process, a conflict may arise between the author and the reviewer. In this case, the editor of the “Nuclear Safety” Journal has the right to appoint a new reviewer and involve the Editor-in-Chief or the Deputy Editor-in-Chief to resolve disputes.

Articles by the Editor-in-Chief, their deputy, executive secretary, and members of the Editorial Board may be published in the “Nuclear Safety” Journal, but there must be no abuse of office. Manuscripts of the journal’s staff are sent for double-blind peer review to external experts only. External experts are involved to resolve contradictions and conflict situations. In case of a conflict regarding the status of the Editor-in-Chief’s manuscript, the final decision on the possibility of publication is made by the members of the Editorial Board.

When publishing articles by members of the Editorial Board, the Editor-in-Chief, and their deputy, the “Conflict of Interest” section includes information about their affiliation with the journal.

“Nuclear Safety” Journal does not exempt manuscripts from peer review regardless of the authors’ status.

Copies of reviews are kept in the “Nuclear Safety” editorial office for at least 5 years.

Composition of Reviewers

All submitted manuscripts are reviewed by external experts with experience in the relevant subject area and publications on the topic of the reviewed manuscript within the last 3 years.

Principles of Reviewer Selection and Editorial Activities to Ensure High-Quality Expertise

The editorial office of the “Nuclear Safety” Journal works regularly to attract recognized experts in the field of nuclear energy and timely rotation of reviewers.

Reviewers are invited to work with the Journal upon recommendation by the Editor-in-Chief, their deputy, and members of the Editorial Board as well as authors.

The Journal Publishing Editor monitors regularly publications on the journal’s topics in databases such as Scopus, Web of Science, and RSCI and sends collaboration invitations to the authors of these publications.

The first review of new reviewers is evaluated based on the following criteria:

1. Did the reviewer comment on the importance of the issue raised in the study?
2. Did the reviewer comment on the originality of the manuscript?
3. Did the reviewer identify the strengths and weaknesses of the study (study design, data collection, and analysis)?
4. Did the reviewer provide useful comments regarding the language and structure of the article, tables, and figures?
5. Were the reviewer’s comments constructive?
6. Did the reviewer present arguments using examples from the article to justify their comments?
7. Did the reviewer comment on the author’s interpretation of the results?
8. The overall quality of the review.

Each item can be rated from 1 to 5 points, where 1 is the minimum score and 5 is the maximum.

If the quality of the review does not satisfy the editors, collaboration with the reviewer will be terminated.

The editors of the “Nuclear Safety” Journal have the right to evaluate an unlimited number of reviews by all experts involved with the Journal.

Engaging Reviewers Mechanism

The editors of “Nuclear Safety” Journal consider peer review one of the most important procedures in working on the journal and value the experience and time of experts involved in the review process.

Reviewers of the “Nuclear Safety” Journal receive the right to priority publication as well as the right to have an article accepted for publication translated into English.

The names and affiliations of the reviewers are published on the “Nuclear Safety” Journal website in open access without indicating which articles they reviewed.

Confidentiality

The editorial office of the “Nuclear Safety” Journal does not disclose the personal data of reviewers and authors. Any manuscript is considered by the “Nuclear Safety” Journal editorial office as a confidential document. The editorial office expects that reviewers will not disclose or discuss the texts of manuscripts with third parties without the editor’s consent.

Reviewers may involve third parties in the review process only with the editor’s consent.

Reviewer Responsibilities

By agreeing to review manuscripts for the “Nuclear Safety” Journal, the reviewer agrees to follow the journal’s policy in assessing the manuscript, preparing the review, and adhering to reviewer behaviour and ethical requirements.

The reviewer must strive to ensure the high quality of the materials published in the “Nuclear Safety” Journal and therefore should only review a manuscript if they have sufficient expertise in the field and enough time for a thorough and comprehensive review of the article.

The reviewer must inform the editor of any conflict of interest (personal, financial, intellectual, professional, political, or religious) if it exists. In case of doubt, the situation should be discussed with the editor.

• The reviewer must refuse to review if:
• They are a supervisor or subordinate of the author of the manuscript, as well as a holder of joint grants;
• They do not plan to prepare a review and only want to familiarize themselves with the text of the article;
• They are preparing their own article on a similar topic;
• They are reviewing an article on a similar topic.

The reviewer must notify the editor of their intention to review the article and complete the work within the specified time frame. If a review cannot be conducted for several reasons, it is advisable to recommend another expert to the editor.

The reviewer may not use their status for personal purposes and impose references to their own work on the authors.

All materials received from the journal editor are strictly confidential. The reviewer should not transfer materials to third parties or involve other specialists in the review process without the consent of the “Nuclear Safety” Journal editor.

Recommendations for Reviewers

For the convenience of the reviewer, the editorial board of the “Nuclear Safety” Journal offers to use the form for quick review, it reflects the questions, the answers required by the editor to make a decision about the article.

The Editorial Board asks the reviewer to pay more attention to the “Comments” section to help the authors improve the current and subsequent works.

Content and Structure of the Review

The recommendations of the National Electronic Information Consortium (NEICON) were used to create the section. The “Nuclear Safety” Journal Editorial Board received permission from NEICON to use methodological recommendations in the journal’s review policy.

A manuscript should be evaluated by 10 criteria:

• originality;
• logical integrity;
• statistical integrity;
• clarity and conciseness of writing style;
• theoretical significance;
• reliable results;
• relevance to current areas of research;
• result reproducibility;
• reference coverage;
• application of results.

In addition to the quick review form, the “Nuclear Safety” Journal Editorial Board recommends that reviewers adhere to the following structure of the review:

Comments for the Editor

Conflict of interest - a real or potential conflict of interest related to the content of the manuscript or its authors, which may lead to biased conclusions is described.

Confidential comments - this section is intended for comments that will not be passed on to the authors. It includes the reviewer’s final decision on the fate of the manuscript, the reviewer’s assumptions, expression of doubts regarding possible ethics violations as well as recommendations and accompanying comments (for example, the reviewer may advise the editor to request additional information from the author).

Proposed decision - usually, a brief conclusion about the manuscript status (accept for publication, accept for publication after minor revisions, accept for publication after significant revisions, reject, reject and invite the author to resubmit the paper for reconsideration).

Comments for the Authors

Introduction - this section describes the main findings and the value of the article to readers.

Main Comments - this section describes the relevance to the goals and objectives of the journal, the level of reliability, and ethical behaviour.

Specific comments — the reviewer evaluates sections of the article (abstract, introduction, methods, results, discussion) or comments on specific pages, paragraphs, or lines.

Recommendations to the author — the reviewer makes recommendations to the author how to improve the quality of the manuscript and, possibly, future research.

Final comments — a brief summary of the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript without any additional recommendations.

Manuscript Evaluation Criteria

Relevance to the Subject Area

 Time should not be wasted reviewing an irrelevant manuscript, regardless of its quality. The first step is to determine whether the manuscript is relevant to the subject area of the journal and the interests of its audience.

Validity

 Does the work meet all the necessary requirements in terms of study design, scientific methods, structure and content, and depth of analysis, does it comply with the principles of impartial scientific research, and are the results reproducible? Is the study sample selected appropriately? Is it analyzed in sufficient detail to allow the results to be generalized?

Novelty

Did the study contribute anything new to the relevant subject area?

Ethics

Does the study meet the requirements for originality, has it been approved by the review board (if required), and is it unbiased in terms of conflicts of interest? Regardless of how great the supposed significance of the manuscript is, it cannot be accepted for publication in case of redundancy, plagiarism, or violation of the basic ethical principles of scientific research: legality, usefulness, and respect for people.

Evaluation of Manuscript Elements

The editors of the “Nuclear Safety” Journal suggest using the following questions to speed up the process of preparing an expert opinion and providing the editor and author with the most complete information about the article.

Title. Does the title accurately match the content of the manuscript? Will the title attract the attention of readers?

Abstract. Is the content of the manuscript presented in the abstract appropriately (is the abstract structured, does it describe the objectives, methods, results, and significance)? Are there any discrepancies between the abstract and the sections of the manuscript? Can the abstract be understood without reading the manuscript?

Introduction. Is the introduction brief? Is the purpose of the study clearly defined and the problem stated? Does the author justify the relevance and significance of the study based on the literature review? If so, does this section meet the length requirements? Does the author provide definitions of terms that appear in the manuscript? If the manuscript is submitted to the Original Research section, does it contain a clearly stated hypothesis?

Literature Review. How comprehensive is the literature review?

Methods. Would another researcher be able to reproduce the study results using the proposed methods, or are the methods unclear?

Do the authors justify their choice of methods when describing the study (e.g., the choice of visualization methods, analytical tools, or statistical methods)?

If the authors state a hypothesis, have they developed methods that allow a reasonable test of the hypothesis?

How is the study design presented?

How does the data analysis help to achieve the stated purpose?

Results

Are the results clearly explained? Is the order of results presented in the order in which the methods are described? Are the results reasonable and expected, or unexpected? Are there any results that are not preceded by a proper description in the Methods section? How accurate is the presentation of the results?

Discussion

If a hypothesis is stated, do the authors state whether it was supported or refuted? If a hypothesis is not supported, do the authors state whether the study question was answered? Are the authors’ conclusions consistent with the results obtained during the study? If unexpected results are obtained, do the authors adequately analyse them? What potential contribution does the study make to the field and to global science?

Conclusions 

Do the authors highlight the limitations of the study? Are there any additional limitations that should be noted? What do the authors think about these limitations? What do the authors think about future research directions?

References

Do the references match the journal format? Are there any bibliographic errors in the references? Are the articles in the references referenced in the text of the article correctly? Are there important works that are not mentioned but should be noted? Are there more references in the article than necessary? Are the cited references up-to-date?

Tables

 If the article contains tables, do they accurately describe the results? Should one or more tables be added to the article? Are the data presented in tables appropriately processed and do they facilitate rather than complicate the understanding of the information?

 Figures

 Are tables and figures an appropriate choice for the task at hand? Could the results be illustrated in another way? Do the figures and graphs accurately depict important results? Do the figures and graphs need to be modified to present the results more accurately and clearly? Do the captions to the figures and graphs allow the information to be understood without referring to the manuscript itself?

 Conflict of Interest Disclosure

Are the funding and conflicts of interest clearly stated?

Reviewer's Final Decision

The editors of the “Nuclear Safety” Journal suggest using the following justification for the reviewer's final decision.

Admit an article to publication. The reviewer understands that the article is ready to be published in the current submission. The article is justified, ethical, significant for the scientific community and complements already published works, the writing style is clear and concise.

Admit after a little modification. There are non-critical remarks to the article that need to be corrected. This may be poor style of the article, lack of clarity of presentation, insufficiently elaborated structure of the article, errors in references, duplication of information in figures and tables and in the text of the article. After making changes and re-evaluation, the article can be submitted.

Admit after considerable modification and review of the article. The article has serious shortcomings and errors affecting the reliability of the results obtained: ethical problems, research design, gaps in the description of research methods, poorly presented results or their incorrect interpretation, insufficiently complete limitations of the study, contradictory (or refuted by the author's own statements) conclusions, lack of references to important studies, unclear tables and figures that require serious revision. After re-evaluation, the article may be accepted, rejected, or sent for additional review. Such a decision often requires the gathering of additional data by an author. 

Reject. The paper does not meet the goals and objectives of the journal, has one or more irreparable shortcomings or serious ethical problems: consent to publish was not obtained where required, the methods of the research are unethical, the methodology is discredited or incorrect (e.g., a process seriously affecting the results is ignored). In such a decision, the author should not submit a corrected paper for review without a specific request. The reviewer should provide detailed comments arguing their decision as they may help the author to improve the paper substantially.

Reject and invite the author to resubmit the article for reconsideration. The subject or research issue is interesting but the author uses incorrect or insufficiently reliable methods; consequently, the data obtained are not reliable either. This decision is also possible in cases when the article requires many changes or when it is not possible to obtain the requested additional information from the author. Authors are encouraged to carry out the study with the recommended changes again and submit new results for consideration.

Review Editing

  The “Nuclear Safety” Journal Editorial Board expects reviews to be written in a friendly tone and in accordance with the rules of the Russian language. Personal attacks, insulting the author, and unsubstantiated criticism of any aspect of the research, language and style of the manuscript, etc. are prohibited.

The “Nuclear Safety” Journal Editorial Board tries to send the reviews to the authors in their original form, but in some cases, it may be necessary to change the review text without losing its meaning (for example, when combining the comments of several experts on the same issue or if there are confidential comments in the section of the review that is intended for the author).

The “Nuclear Safety” Journal Editorial Board has the right to send the review to the expert for revision in case of a large number of errors or unacceptable tone of the review.

Publication Frequency

4 issues per year

Open Access Policy

This is an open access journal. All articles are made freely available to readers immediatly upon publication.

Our open access policy is in accordance with the Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI) definition - it means that articles have free availability on the public internet, permitting any users to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of these articles, crawl them for indexing, pass them as data to software, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without financial, legal, or technical barriers other than those inseparable from gaining access to the internet itself.

For more information please read BOAI statement.

Archiving

• Russian State Library (RSL)
• Elibrary
• VETI NRNU MEPHI

Author fees

Publication in “Nuclear Safety" is free of charge for all the authors.

The journal doesn't have any Article processing charges.

The journal doesn't have any Article submission charges.

Authorship, Authors’ Contributions

Authorship

“Nuclear Safety” Journal adheres to the authorship criteria developed and described in the ICMJE guidelines:

1. Substantial contribution to the conception or design of the study, or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data.
2. Drafting the manuscript or critically revising it for important intellectual content.
3. Final approval of the version to be published.
4. Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

In addition to responsibility for the parts of the work they personally performed, authors should be able to identify which co-authors are responsible for specific components of the work. All those designated as authors should meet all four criteria for authorship, and all who meet the four criteria should be identified as authors.

Individuals who do not meet all four criteria should be acknowledged in the “Acknowledgments” section.

Authors’ Contributions and Non-Author Contributors

In the “Acknowledgments” section, individuals who have contributed to the work but do not meet authorship criteria may be mentioned, for example, those who provided support to the research, acted as mentors, assisted with data collection, or coordinated the study, among others.

To determine contributions correctly, authors of the “Nuclear Safety” Journal may use one of the schemes recommended by COPE:

General Guidelines for Authorship Contributions

CRediT – Contributor Roles Taxonomy

Responsibility

It is the responsibility of the “Nuclear Safety” Journal editors to ensure that standards of authorship and authorial contribution are followed. Authors must provide transparent and accurate information about the authors of the article and individuals who made a substantial contribution to its preparation. If the manuscript is submitted to the “Nuclear Safety” Journal by the Editor-in-Chief, their deputy, Editorial Board member, or Editorial Council member, manuscript review is conducted only by external experts.

To determine the contribution to the article preparation properly, use the following resources:

https://www.apa.org/science/leadership/students/authorship-determination-scorecard.pdf

https://www.apa.org/science/leadership/students/authorship-tie-breaker-scorecard.pdf

Authorship Statement

The “Nuclear Safety” Journal Editorial Board requires that authors provide a signed statement of authorship along with the manuscript, signed by all co-authors.

By signing the statement, authors guarantee:

• each author who signs the statement meets the authorship criteria outlined in the “Nuclear Safety” Journal ethical policy.
• all individuals who contributed to the research but are not authors are listed in the “Acknowledgments” section.
• the contribution of each author is described, and this information will be published in the “Nuclear Safety” Journal.
• authors take responsibility for the accuracy of the information provided.

When receiving the article, the editor checks for author information and all necessary documents. In the absence of an authorship statement or signatures of all authors, the article is not considered for review.

Disputes

In case of disputes about authorship, work on the article is suspended regardless of its stage (review, peer review, editing, or preparation for publication). All co-authors are informed by email of any disputes regarding authorship.

The editor of the “Nuclear Safety” Journal has the right to specify a precise deadline within which authors may provide explanations on the issues raised. After this deadline, the article is withdrawn from publication with an appropriate explanation. If the article was published as Online First, explanations for its withdrawal from publication are made publicly available.

If a dispute arises regarding a published article, the editor of the “Nuclear Safety” Journal publishes a correction, refutation, or retracts the article, stating the reason for the changes to the published document.

If it is necessary to add or exclude a co-author before or after publication, the “Nuclear Safety” Journal Editorial Board acts in accordance with COPE rules:

https://publicationethics.org/files/authorship-a-addition-before-publication-cope-flowchart.pdf

https://publicationethics.org/node/34601

To prevent authorship manipulation, the “Nuclear Safety” Journal Editorial Board uses COPE flowcharts  and pays attention to the following when working with an article:

• indication that the study was funded by organizations whose authors are absent from the general list. This requires a more thorough examination of the contribution of all authors and, if necessary, requests for explanations from the responsible author;
• scientists from another scientific field are listed as authors. This may indicate guest authorship;
• mentioning an individual in the “Acknowledgments” section without specifying their specific contribution;
• very long or very short author lists, which are uncharacteristic of the scientific field or type of article;
• incomplete description of authors’ contributions: for example, lack of information about who prepared the manuscript draft or processed the data;
• plagiarism checks revealing borrowing from a thesis by an author not listed in the author list;
• articles on similar topics published by other author groups;
• sudden changes in the list of authors during the publication stage without prior discussion with the journal’s editorial board;
• an author has a significant number of publications, although their position does not imply such publication activity (department head, institute director);
• the corresponding author cannot respond to reviewer comments.

The “Nuclear Safety” Journal Editorial Board journal expects organizations affiliated with the author to be willing to participate in investigations of authorship disputes.

Plagiarism detection

“Nuclear Safety" use native russian-language plagiarism detection software Antiplagiat to screen the submissions. If plagiarism is identified, the COPE guidelines on plagiarism will be followed.

Conflict of Interest, complaints

 The section is prepared following the WAME recommendations

A conflict of interest occurs when individuals have conflicting or competing interests that could influence editorial decisions and the interpretation of data in an article. Conflicts of interest can be potential, perceived, or actual. Objectivity can be affected by personal, political, financial, scientific, or religious factors.

Conflicts of interest may encompass the following areas:

• financial: This conflict arises when a participant in the publication process has received or expects to receive money (or other financial benefits such as patents or shares), gifts, or services that could influence work related to a specific publication. Examples include payment for research, consultation fees, and speaking fees.
• personal relationships: This conflict arises in the case of personal relationships with family, friends, competitors, or former colleagues.
• political and religious beliefs: Commitment to a particular religion or political party can influence the outcome of reviewing an article that analyses these issues.
• institutional affiliation: This conflict arises when someone involved in the publication process is directly associated with an organization interested in the publication.

The “Nuclear Safety” Journal Editorial Board may ask authors additional questions or request additional information if necessary.

Conflicts of interest may involve authors, reviewers, and editors. The following policy provisions  are based on the ICMJE recommendations.

Author's Responsibilities in Disclosing Conflicts of Interest

When authors submit a manuscript of any type or format, they are required to disclose all relationships and activities that could influence or be perceived as influencing their work. Authors must inform the editor of any real or potential conflict of interest by including this information in the relevant section of the article. If there is no conflict of interest, authors should also state this. An example formulation is: “The author declares no conflict of interest.”

Reviewer’s Responsibilities in Disclosing Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must inform editors of any conflict of interest that may affect their opinion of the manuscript, and they should recuse themselves from reviewing if there are grounds for bias. Reviewers should not use information from the reviewed work for their own benefit until it is published.

Editor’s Responsibilities in Disclosing Conflicts of Interest

Editors making final decisions on manuscripts should recuse themselves from editorial decisions when there is a conflict of interest or relationships that could create potential conflicts related to the articles under consideration. Other editorial staff involved in editorial decisions must inform editors of their current interests (as they may influence editorial decisions) and recuse themselves from decision-making in case of a conflict of interest. Editorial staff must not use information obtained during manuscript handling for personal purposes. Guest editors must follow these same procedures. In articles by the “Nuclear Safety” Journal’s Editor-in-Chief, Deputy Editor, Editorial Board members, and Editorial Council members, the connection with the “Nuclear Safety” Journal should be clearly indicated.

If an undisclosed conflict of interest is found in an unpublished article, the “Nuclear Safety” Journal Editorial Board acts according to COPE guidelines.

If an undisclosed conflict of interest is found in a published article, the “Nuclear Safety” Journal Editorial Board acts according to  COPE guidelines.

Complaints and Appeals

The “Nuclear Safety” Journal Editorial Board pays close attention to complaints about the behaviour of editors and reviewers, which may involve issues such as confidentiality breaches, undisclosed conflicts of interest, unauthorized use of confidential information obtained during the peer review process, or disagreements with decisions regarding expressions of doubt about specific articles or complaints about editorial processes.

All complaints can be sent to the email editor@elpub.ru, ADSmirnov@mephi.ru,  they will be considered in the usual order. The complaint review process takes no more than 7 days.  The individual who submitted the complaint will receive information about the decision, the measures to be taken, and the timeline for their implementation.

When reviewing complaints, the editorial board follows COPE guidelines in each of the following cases:

 Handling post-publication criticism

Post-publication discussions and making changes

Suspicion of review manipulation after publication

 Image Manipulations in the published article

 Data Fabrication in the published article

Preprint and postprint Policy

Prior to acceptance and publication in “Nuclear Safety", authors may make their submissions available as preprints on personal or public websites.

As part of submission process, authors are required to confirm that the submission has not been previously published, nor has been submitted. After a manuscript has been published in “Nuclear Safety" we suggest that the link to the article on journal's website is used when the article is shared on personal or public websites.

Glossary (by SHERPA)

Data Reuse and Reproduction

This section of the policy is based on COPE guidelines regarding data handling. Authors’ access to research data supporting their publication content is encouraged but not mandatory. Authors’ consent to provide access to research data does not influence the publication decision.

Research Data Definition

Research data includes any factual material recorded on any medium used in the process of obtaining research results, whether digital or non-digital. This includes tabular data, code, images, audio and video files, documents, maps, processed and/or raw data. This policy applies to research data required to verify the validity of research results presented in articles published by the “Nuclear Safety” Journal. Research data includes information directly obtained by authors (primary data) and data from other sources analysed by authors during the research (secondary data).

Definition of Exceptions

This policy does not apply to research data not required to verify the validity of results presented in published articles. Information on data not subject to disclosure can be shared as follows: placed in restricted-access data repositories; anonymized beforehand. Authors can also publicly provide only metadata of the research data and/or descriptions of how to access them upon request by other researchers.

Data Storage

The preferred method of data sharing is using data repositories. If assistance is needed in selecting a repository for data placement, refer to the repository list at: https://repositoryfinder.datacite.org/.

Data Citation

The “Nuclear Safety” Journal Editorial Board encourages access to research data under Creative Commons licenses. The Editorial Board does not require mandatory use of open licenses when data is placed in third-party repositories. The Publisher of the “Nuclear Safety” Journal does not claim ownership of research data provided by authors with the article.

Questions regarding compliance with this policy can be sent to the Executive Secretary of the “Nuclear Safety” Journal.

Generative Artificial Intelligence Usage Policy

Due to the development of generative artificial intelligence (AI) and AI-assisted technologies used by authors in the creation of scientific manuscripts, the “Nuclear Safety” Journal has established a policy to regulate their use. The Journal will closely monitor developments in this area and will adjust and clarify its policy as necessary.

For Authors

Usage of generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in scientific writing

The policy applies solely to the writing process and does not cover the use of AI to analyse data or draw scientific conclusions as part of the research process.

Purpose of AI usage

Authors of the “Nuclear Safety” Journal may use generative AI and AI tools only to improve the readability and language of their manuscripts. The use of these technologies must be under human supervision, and authors must carefully check and edit texts. It is important to consider that AI may generate the text that appears authoritative but contains incorrect, incomplete or biased statements.

Responsibility and Disclosure of Information

Authors of the “Nuclear Safety” Journal are solely responsible for the content of their manuscript. The use of AI tools must be disclosed, and this disclosure should be stated to ensure transparency and build trust among all participants in the publication process.

Exclusion of AI from co-authors

AI tools cannot be listed as authors or co-authors. Authorship implies responsibility and performance of tasks that can only be assigned to a human. Authors are required to ensure that the work is original, meets ethical standards and does not violate the rights of third parties.

AI usage in Illustrations and Graphic Design

Prohibition of creating or modifying images using AI

The use of generative AI or AI tools to create, modify, or manipulate images in manuscripts is prohibited. Adjustments to brightness, contrast, and colour balance are permitted as long as they do not distort the data presented.

Exception 

If the use of AI is part of the research methodology (e.g. in biomedical imaging), it should be described in detail in the Materials and Methods section, including the name and characteristics of the AI ​​tool used.

For Reviewers

Manuscripts submitted for review are confidential documents, and uploading them or parts of them to AI tools is unacceptable as this may violate the authors' confidentiality and intellectual property rights. This rule also applies to reviews as they may contain confidential information about the manuscript and authors. The use of generative AI in scientific peer review is unacceptable as the peer review process requires critical thinking and independent assessment which is beyond the capabilities of AI. The reviewer is fully responsible for the content of the review.

The “Nuclear Safety” Journal permits the use of secure AI technologies to check manuscript completeness, plagiarism, and to find suitable reviewers while following confidentiality standards.

For Editors

All manuscripts submitted for review must remain closed documents. Uploading them or any parts of them to AI tools is not allowed, as this may violate the authors' rights and their privacy. The use of generative AI for editorial decision-making is prohibited. Evaluation of manuscripts requires critical thinking and an objective approach that can only be provided by editors. The editors of “Nuclear Safety” Journal are fully responsible for the editorial process, the final decision to publish the manuscript, and making available to the authors. 

Ethical Oversight

“Nuclear Safety” Journal aligns with COPE’s view that publication ethics encompasses not only ensuring the integrity and reliability of published research but also ethical conduct regarding research subjects.  но и ethical conduct regarding research subjects. This category includes vulnerable populations, laboratory animals, humans (in relevant studies), confidential data, and business/marketing practices.

Vulnerable Populations

  Vulnerable populations include (but are not limited to) those unable to protect their interests: pregnant women, newborns, children, unborn children, prisoners, people with disabilities, people with intellectual impairments, economically disadvantaged, critically ill patients, etc. Research involving vulnerable populations should only be planned if these groups will benefit from it. A concern is that not all research participants may fully understand the research conditions. If informed consent cannot be obtained directly from the participant, a legal representative must sign it. Special care should be taken in research involving children. “Nuclear Safety” Journal supports  COPE’s statement on publishing research involving vulnerable populations . Authors must obtain informed consent for publication and report it to the “Nuclear Safety” Journal.

Confidential Data Handling

The right to privacy for individuals or organizations involved in research is of paramount importance and should not be violated without their informed consent. Authors must take all necessary precautions to protect the information about research participants. If necessary, authors should take measures to minimize any potential physical and psychological harm to the research participants.

Post-Publication Discussions and Amendments to Published Articles

In some cases, it is necessary to make changes to an already published article. The “Nuclear Safety” Journal Editorial Board supports the practice of making changes to published materials and, if necessary, acts in accordance with с COPE guidelines. Any necessary changes are accompanied by a post-publication notification, which will always be linked to the original version of the article so that readers can get information about all necessary changes. The “Nuclear Safety” Editorial Board uses expressions of “Doubt”, “Correction”, or “Retractions of Article”. The goal of this practice is to ensure the integrity of scientific materials. All corrections, expressions of concern, and retraction notices are publicly accessible.

What Should Authors Do If They Find an Error in Their Article?

Authors may discover a technical or substantive error after the publication of the article. In this case, the authors should notify the “Nuclear Safety” Journal Editorial Board as soon as possible, especially if the errors could affect the interpretation of the results or raise doubts about the reliability of the information. The corresponding author is responsible for reaching a consensus within the author team on further interaction with the Editorial Board. If you believe that changes need to be made to the published article, please contact us by email at oni-viti@mephi.ru

Algorithm for Making Changes to an Article. Correction

Corrections are made to an article if it is necessary to correct an error or add missing information, and this does not affect the integrity and scientific significance of the article. Corrections can be made, for example, to a figure caption, to add information about the funding of the research, or to clarify information about conflicts of interest. In case of such changes, a separate correction notice is published. The general action algorithm is as follows:

• the correction is made to the original version of the article;
• the Crossmark record is updated;
• a description of the change is added to the “Abstract” field of the original version of the article;
• a correction notice is published, containing information about the original version of the article, as well as links to it, the names of the authors, and a description of the correction.

Notices of spelling mistakes, typos, and other minor changes are not published separately. The website states that corrections have been made to the article (without detailing).

Article Retraction

The “Nuclear Safety” Journal Editorial Board journal decides on the need to retract an article in the following cases:

• when there is clear evidence that the results are unreliable for various reasons: there are serious errors in the calculations, the data are fabricated, or there has been manipulation of images;
• plagiarism is detected in the article;
• the results have already been published earlier in other journals, and the author has not justified the need for re-publication and has not informed the editor about it;
• the article contains materials and data for which permission to use has not been obtained;
• copyright has been violated or another serious legal problem has arisen (e.g., confidentiality has been breached);
• the ethics of conducting research have been violated;
• the peer review process was compromised;
• the author did not disclose a conflict of interest that, in the editor’s opinion, could have influenced the reviewer’s or editor’s decision to publish the article.

The “Nuclear Safety” Journal Editorial Board acts according to the following algorithm when a retraction is necessary:

• conduct an investigation and ensure that retraction is necessary;
• prepare a retraction notice: include the label “Article Retraction” and the title of the article, describe the reason for the retraction, indicate on whose initiative it is conducted, and provide a link to the retracted article;
• publish the retraction notice;
• replace the original version of the retracted article, noting in the pdf file that the article has been retracted;
• notify databases of the retraction;
• transfer the information about the retraction to the retracted articles database.

The “Nuclear Safety” Journal Editorial Board works with retracted articles according to COPE regulations.

Aspects of Doubt

The “Nuclear Safety” Journal Editorial Board issues an expression of concern if there are serious concerns about the published article, but the investigation has not yielded any proof, or for some reason, an investigation will not be conducted or cannot be completed in a timely manner. In this case, it is necessary to notify readers about the situation as soon as possible. After the investigation is completed, changes may be made to the article, or it may be retracted.

Article Removal

Articles are removed from the “Nuclear Safety” Journal only in extreme cases, when it is impossible to follow the protocol for making changes, retracting an article, or expressing concern.

An article may be removed in the following cases:

• if the distribution of the article may pose a serious risk;
• if the article contains content that violates the right to privacy of a research participant;
• if the article violates rights;
• if the article is subject to removal by court order.

In the case of the article removal, all materials are removed from the journal’s website, requests are sent to databases to delete the full text, and a notice of the article’s removal is posted.

Supplementing a Published Article

An author may need to supplement an article sometime after its publication. In this case, the “Nuclear Safety” Journal Editorial Board may publish a supplement to the article. Supplements to the article are necessarily reviewed by the journal editors and may be sent for peer review. When a supplement is published, the file with the original version of the article is updated, and a notice of the supplement is additionally placed in the current issue of the journal, including information about the article, its authors, the nature of the changes, and a link to the article.

Commenting on a Published Article

Comments are short materials in which an opinion or observation about a published article can be expressed. Comments are sent to reviewers and the authors of the article so that they have the opportunity to prepare a response to the comment. The authors’ response is also sent to the reviewer. The author of the comment will have the opportunity to reply to the authors once more, after which the correspondence between the author of the comment and the authors of the article can continue privately. The decision to publish comments is made by the editor of the “Nuclear Safety” Journal. Comments, responses, and replies are linked to the original version of the article to which they relate.

Responsibilities of the journal’s management

Editor's Responsibilities

The “Nuclear Safety” Journal editor is responsible personally and independently for deciding whether to publish an article. The final decision to publish is made by the Editor-in-Chief of the journal.

The “Nuclear Safety” Journal editor adheres to the journal’s policy when reviewing an article and making a decision on its publication.

The “Nuclear Safety” Journal editor may discuss the article and reviewer comments with other editors and reviewers if justified and lawful, without using the discussed materials for personal purposes.

The “Nuclear Safety” Journal editor must evaluate the content of the manuscript regardless of the authors’ race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, origin, citizenship, or political preferences.

The “Nuclear Safety” Journal editor must maintain confidentiality and not disclose manuscript information to third parties (except other journal editors, reviewers, the publisher, and the founder) unnecessarily.

The “Nuclear Safety” Journal editor must report all conflict situations and the discovery of critical errors or accusations of authors or reviewers violating publication ethics to the Editor-in-Chief, so that necessary actions can be taken: making changes, publishing retractions, retracting articles, expressing doubts.

The “Nuclear Safety” Journal editor participates in the investigation of any ethical violations concerning manuscripts under review and published articles, making every effort to resolve conflicts as quickly as possible. If necessary, the “Nuclear Safety” Journal editor cooperates with the author’s organization for a more thorough investigation.

Publisher's Responsibilities

The “Nuclear Safety” Journal publisher is responsible for adhering to all modern recommendations and requirements for maintaining the integrity of the scientific materials published in the journal.

The publisher follows the “Nuclear Safety” Journal’s policy on compensation for manuscript preparation and publication, as well as revenue from advertising and reprints. The “Nuclear Safety” Journal publisher does not allow potential revenue from advertising and reprints to influence the editors’ decisions on manuscript publication.

The “Nuclear Safety” Journal publisher does not interfere in editorial processes, but if necessary and at the editors’ request, can participate in the investigation of publication ethics violations and send official requests to scientific and educational organizations and other publishers on behalf of the journal.

The “Nuclear Safety” Journal publisher must implement industry standards in the publishing process to improve the ethical aspect of the journal’s work and provide comprehensive legal support to the journal’s editorial board when necessary.

Founder's Responsibilities  

The “Nuclear Safety” Journal founder adheres to the principle of editorial independence: the director of the founding organization and its employees do not interfere in the editorial process.

The “Nuclear Safety” Journal founder may recommend potential members of the Editorial Board/editorial Council, reviewers, and authors, but the final decision on their cooperation is made only by the Editor-in-Chief

The “Nuclear Safety” Journal founder supports the need for geographical and gender diversity among members of the editorial board/editorial council, reviewers, and authors.

The “Nuclear Safety” Journal founder does not place financial and political gain above the quality of the journal. Editors of the “Nuclear Safety” Journal make decisions on manuscript publication based on their quality and interest for the journal’s target audience.

The “Nuclear Safety” Journal founder does not interfere in editorial processes, but if necessary and at the editors’ request, can participate in the investigation of publication ethics violations and send official requests to scientific and educational organizations and other publishers on behalf of the journal.

Digital Identifier

A DOI and EDN are assigned to every article.