- » Aim and Scope
- » Section Policies
- » Publication Frequency
- » Delayed Open Access
- » Archiving
- » Peer-Review
- » Indexation
- » Publishing Ethics
- » Founder
- » Author fees
- » Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
- » Plagiarism detection
- » Preprint and postprint Policy
- » Issues of Risk Analysis Ad Policy
- » Recommendations for reviewers
Aim and Scope
Latest updates: 28.05.2025
The purpose of the «Issues of Risk Analysis» magazine to promote formation of culture of risk management, synthesis of experience of researches of risk, introduction of innovative approaches, creation of knowledge bases and data, information space on risk, support of scientific projects, creation and introduction of professional and educational standards and programs, coordination of activity of specialists in the analysis and risk management, development of standard indicators of admissible (acceptable) risk, legislative and legal support.
The modern world continuously changes, and it is impossible to avoid risks. But it is possible to operate them and it is necessary. What demands constant theoretical search and practical introduction of new approaches, methods of assessment, the analysis and risk management, new standards. On pages of the magazine the original and review articles of cross-disciplinary and applied character devoted to current problems of the analysis and risk management of various origin and character in various fields of activity are published.
Task of our magazine to give information on results of the last scientific research in the field of the analysis and risk management that helps specialists in risk management to solve pressing problems, to introduce innovative scientific developments and to apply scientific experience in practical activities of risk management in emergency situations, safety of activity of the population, global and regional security, environment protection, construction and improvement of risk management systems in the organizations and at the enterprises of various sectors of the economy.
The «Issues of Risk Analysis» magazine is known not only in the Russian Federation, but also beyond its limits. In the edition there are a lot of publications of foreign scientists.
Section Policies
Open Submissions
IndexedPublication Frequency
Once in two months (6 issues per year)
Delayed Open Access
The contents of this journal will be available in an open access format 12 month(s) after an issue is published.
Archiving
- Russian State Library (RSL)
- National Electronic-Information Consortium (NEICON)
Peer-Review
Latest updates: 28.05.2025
A double-blind peer review method is mandatory for processing of all scientific manuscripts submitted to the editorial stuff of "Issues of Risk Analysis". This implies that neither the reviewer is aware of the authorship of the manuscript, nor the author maintains any contact with the reviewer.
- Members of the editorial board and leading Russian and international experts in corresponding areas of life sciences, invited as independent readers, perform peer reviews. Editor-in-chief, deputy editor-in-chief or science editor choose readers for peer review. We aim to limit the review process to 2-4 weeks, though in some cases the schedule may be adjusted at the reviewer’s request.
- Reviewer has an option to abnegate the assessment should any conflict of interests arise that may affect perception or interpretation of the manuscript. Upon the scrutiny, the reviewer is expected to present the editorial board with one of the following recommendations:
- to accept the paper in its present state;
- to invited the author to revise their manuscript to address specific concerns before final decision is reached;
- that final decision be reached following further reviewing by another specialist;
- to reject the manuscript outright. - If the reviewer has recommended any refinements, the editorial staff would suggest the author either to implement the corrections, or to dispute them reasonably. Authors are kindly required to limit their revision to 2 months and resubmit the adapted manuscript within this period for final evaluation.
- We politely request that the editor be notified verbally or in writing should the author decide to refuse from publishing the manuscript. In case the author fails to do so within 3 months since receiving a copy of the initial review, the editorial board takes the manuscript off the register and notifies the author accordingly.
- If author and reviewers meet insoluble contradictions regarding revision of the manuscript, the editor-in-chief resolves the conflict by his own authority.
- The editorial board reaches final decision to reject a manuscript on the hearing according to reviewers’ recommendations, and duly notifies the authors of their decision via e-mail. The board does not accept previously rejected manuscripts for re-evaluation.
- Upon the decision to accept the manuscript for publishing, the editorial staff notifies the authors of the scheduled date of publication.
- Kindly note that positive review does not guarantee the acceptance, as final decision in all cases lies with the editorial board. By his authority, editor-in-chief rules final solution of every conflict.
- Original reviews of submitted manuscripts remain deposited for 3 years.
Indexation
Latest updates: 28.05.2025
Articles in "Issues of Risk Analysis" are indexed by several systems:
- Russian Scientific Citation Index (RSCI) – a database, accumulating information on papers by Russian scientists, published in native and foreign titles. The RSCI project is under development since 2005 by “Electronic Scientific Library” foundation (elibrary.ru).
- Google Scholar is a freely accessible web search engine that indexes the full text of scholarly literature across an array of publishing formats and disciplines. The Google Scholar index includes most peer-reviewed online journals of Europe and America's largest scholarly publishers, plus scholarly books and other non-peer reviewed journals.
Publishing Ethics
Latest updates: 28.05.2025
The editorial office of the "Issues of Risk Analysis" magazine at decision-making and permissions of the possible conflicts follows the recognized international rules regulating ethical relationship between all participants of printing process: authors, editors, reviewers, publisher and founder.
The provisions listed in this section are based on the recommendations of "The code of ethics of scientific publications", the developed and approved Committee on ethics of scientific publications (Committee on Publication Ethics – COPE), Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement of Elsevier publishing house, the Declaration of Association of scientific editors and publishers "Ethical principles of scientific publications"
1. Introduction
1.1. The publication in a peer reviewed learned journal, serves many purposes outside of simple communication. It is a building block in the development of a coherent and respected network of knowledge. For all these reasons and more it is important to lay down standards of expected ethical behaviour by all parties involved in the act of publishing: the author, the journal editor, the peer reviewer, the publisher and the society for society-owned or sponsored journal: "Issues of Risk Analysis"
1.2.Publisher has a supporting, investing and nurturing role in the scholarly communication process but is also ultimately responsible for ensuring that best practice is followed in its publications.
1.3. Publisher takes its duties of guardianship over the scholarly record extremely seriously. Our journal programmes record «the minutes of science» and we recognise our responsibilities as the keeper of those «minutes» in all our policies not least the ethical guidelines that we have here adopted.
2. Duties of Editors
2.1.Publication decision – The Editor of a learned "Issues of Risk Analysis" is solely and independently responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published, often working on conjunction with the relevant society (for society-owned or sponsored journals). The validation of the work in question and its importance to researchers and readers must always underwrite such decisions. The Editor may be guided by the policies of the "Issues of Risk Analysis" journal’s editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editor may confer with other editors or reviewers (or society officers) in making this decision.
2.2.Fair play – An editor should evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.
2.3.Confidentiality – The editor and any editorial staff of "Issues of Risk Analysis" must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.
2.4.Disclosure and Conflicts of interest
2.4.1. Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor’s own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.
2.4.2. Editors should recuse themselves (i.e. should ask a co-editor, associate editor or other member of the editorial board instead to review and consider) from considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or (possibly) institutions connected to the papers.
2.5.Vigilance over published record – An editor presented with convincing evidence that the substance or conclusions of a published paper are erroneous should coordinate with the publisher (and/or society) to promote the prompt publication of a correction, retraction, expression of concern, or other note, as may be relevant.
2.6.Involvement and cooperation in investigations – An editor should take reasonably responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper, in conjunction with the publisher (or society). Such measures will generally include contacting the author of the manuscript or paper and giving due consideration of the respective complaint or claims made, but may also include further communications to the relevant institutions and research bodies.
3. Duties of Reviewers
3.1.Contribution to Editorial Decisions – Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper. Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication, and lies at the heart of the scientific method. Publisher shares the view of many that all scholars who wish to contribute to publications have an obligation to do a fair share of reviewing.
3.2.Promptness – Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor of "Issues of Risk Analysis" and excuse himself from the review process.
3.3.Confidentiality – Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorised by the editor.
3.4.Standard and objectivity – Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
3.5.Acknowledgement of Sources – Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor’s attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
3.6.Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
3.6.1.Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.
3.6.2. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
4. Duties of Authors
4.1.Reporting standards
4.1.1. Authors of reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable.
4.1.2. Review and professional publication articles should also be accurate and objective, and editorial 'opinion’ works should be clearly identified as such.
4.2.Data Access and Retention – Authors may be asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review, and should be prepared to provide public access to such data (consistent with the ALPSP-STM Statement on Data and Databases), if practicable, and should in any event be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.
4.3.Originality and Plagiarism
4.3.1. The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others, this has been appropriately cited or quoted.
4.3.2. Plagiarism takes many forms, from ‘passing off’ another’s paper as the author’s own paper, to copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of another’s paper (without attribution), to claiming results from research conducted by others. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.
4.4.Multiple, Redundant or Concurrent Publication
4.4.1. An author should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal of primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.
4.4.2. In general, an author should not submit for consideration in another journal a previously published paper.
4.4.3. Publication of some kinds of articles (eg, translations) in more than one journal is sometimes justifiable, provided certain conditions are met. The authors and editors of the journals concerned must agree to the secondary publication, which must reflect the same data and interpretation of the primary document. The primary reference must be cited in the secondary publication.
4.5.Acknowledgement of Sources – Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work. Information obtained privately, as in conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third parties, must not be used or reported without explicit, written permission from the source. Information obtained in the course of confidential services, such as refereeing manuscripts or grant applications, must not be used without the explicit written permission of the author of the work involved in these services.
4.6.Authorship of the Paper
4.6.1. Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors.
4.6.2. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included on the paper, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.
4.7. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest
4.7.1. All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.
4.7.2. Examples of potential conflicts of interest which should be disclosed include employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony, patent applications/registrations, and grants or other funding. Potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed at the earliest possible stage.
4.8. Fundamental errors in published works – When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in a published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the editor of "Issues of Risk Analysis" journal and cooperate with Publisher to retract or correct the paper, If the editor or the publisher learn from a third party that a published work contains a significant error, it is the obligation of the author to promptly retract or correct the paper.
5. Duties of the Publisher (and if relevant, Society)
5.1. Publisher should adopt policies and procedures that support editors, reviewers and authors of "Issues of Risk Analysis" in performing their ethical duties under these ethics guidelines. The publisher should ensure that the potential for advertising no impact on editorial decisions.
5.2. The publisher should support "Issues of Risk Analysis" journal editors in the review of complaints raised concerning ethical issues and help communications with other journals and/or publishers where this is useful to editors.
5.3. Publisher should develop codes of practice and inculcate industry standards for best practice on ethical matters, errors and retractions.
5.4. Publisher should provide specialised legal review and counsel if necessary.
The section is prepared according to the files (http://health.elsevier.ru/attachments/editor/file/ethical_code_final.pdf) of Elsevier publisher (https://www.elsevier.com/) and files (http://publicationethics.org/resources) from Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE - http://publicationethics.org/).
Founder
Latest updates: 28.05.2025
Federal State Establishment Civil Defense and Disaster Management All Russian Science Research Institute Ministry of Russian Federation for Civil Defense, Emergency and Elimination of Consequences of Natural Disasters Federal Center of Science and High Technologies
Author fees
Latest updates: 28.05.2025
This journal charges the following author fees.
Article publication: 5 832.00 (RUB), incl. VAT 20%
If the article is accepted for publication, you will be asked to pay for the publication of the article to cover publishing costs.
If you do not have the financial ability to make these payments, you can request that each of these payments be cancelled. We don't want payments to be a barrier to publishing decent work.
Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
Latest updates: 28.05.2025
Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.
Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
Plagiarism detection
Latest updates: 28.05.2025
"Issues of Risk Analysis" use native russian-language plagiarism detection software Antiplagiat to screen the submissions. If plagiarism is identified, the COPE guidelines on plagiarism will be followed.
Preprint and postprint Policy
Latest updates: 28.05.2025
Prior to acceptance and publication in "Issues of Risk Analysis", 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 "Issues of Risk Analysis" 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)
Issues of Risk Analysis Ad Policy
Latest updates: 28.05.2025
The journal receives revenue from advertising and reprints, so the advertising policy of the magazine has been approved, the main principles of which are set out below:
- Editors 'decisions should not depend on the cost of advertising.
- Advertisers and sponsors should not have control over editor decisions regardless of advertising conditions or other agreements.
- The content of special additional issues of the magazine (if any) should be regulated only by the decisions of the editor, the content of such issue should not be influenced by sponsors or advertisers.
- Restrictions on the volume of advertising materials in the journal are not more than 40% of the total volume of the journal.
- The journal has an official advertising policy, it is available to all participants in the editorial and publishing process.
- All advertisements must uniquely identify the advertiser and the product or service offered.
- Advertising in the magazine and on its website is related to its content.
- Advertising should not be deceptive or misleading. Advertising shall not contain offensive religious and/or racial considerations.
- The journal must be entitled to refuse to post any advertisement for any reason.
- The decision to publish advertising should be made only with the participation of the editor and editorial board of the journal.
Recommendations for reviewers
Latest updates: 28.05.2025
Follows reviewers:
- to agree to reviewing only of those manuscripts of which subject they are sufficiently competent to give a correct assessment and which they can estimate at the terms coordinated with the magazine. Otherwise he has to refuse reviewing motivated;
- to refuse reviewing if they consider that they are incapable to carry out it fairly or if they were involved in any works on the manuscript;
- to avoid use of the data obtained during reviewing process in the purposes or for the benefit of the organization;
- not to allow such factors as origin of the manuscript, nationality of authors, their religious or political views, a floor or other data and also to have commercial reasons an impact on reviews;
- to be objective in reviews, to avoid hostility, provocative or humiliating personal comments;
- to report about any potential collisions or the conflicts of interests (for example, personal, financial, intellectual, professional or others), consulting on the editorial office of the magazine in case of uncertainty of relative whether it is an obstacle for preparation of the review;
- to report in the magazine about situations which, according to reviewers, clash with reviewing: if they work with the author in one division of the organization; now are or recently (for the last three years) were heads, wards, close employees or scholars of one grant with authors; have close personal relations with any of authors;
- in the course of reviewing immediately to report in the magazine and to address for council in case of detection of the conflict of interests which was unevident when they agreed to review the manuscript, at detection of insufficient competence for the estimation of all aspects of the manuscript or other factor interfering writing of the fair review; it is not necessary to wait for the moment of submission of the review since it will drag out reviewing process;
- to refrain from involvement of strangers, including the subordinates, in process of reviewing of the manuscript needlessly; in case of involvement of other persons, they have to follow recommendations of confidentiality for reviewers. Names of the people who assisted in writing of the review have to be specified in the review or the cover letter to it that they appeared in archive of the magazine in connection with this manuscript; collective reviews (i.e. "washing out" of responsibility) are not allowed – the reviewer bears personal responsibility for the review;
- to make recommendations which will help authors to improve the manuscript; to be convinced that the review is based on advantages of work and it was not written under influence – positive or negative – any personal, financial or other conflict reasons or intellectual prejudices;
- to accurately number remarks and recommendations according to which the reviewer wants to receive the answer; to criticize the concrete moments and to provide proofs with the corresponding references for confirmation of the general statements like "such work was already made earlier" to help an editorial board with estimates and decisions and for justice reasons in relation to authors; to explain what offered additional researches are necessary for confirmation of the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and what will strengthen or will expand work; it is allowed to specify remarks of editorial character in the electronic version of article, whether subjects otherwise, allocating them in the text;
- to reveal the significant published works on a manuscript subject not included in the list of the quoted literature; to draw the attention of editorial office of the magazine to the found essential similarity or coincidence between the considered manuscript and to any other famous reviewer the published work;
- to remember that article belongs to the author and not to try to rewrite it in own style if generally it is written sensibly and clearly; in other cases of suggestion for improvement of clarity of article are represented important;
- to observe instructions of the magazine concerning a form of preparation of the review if there are no good reasons for other;
- to provide confidential comments for the editor, in case of their need, the separate document with the corresponding explanation; they should not be the place for the false charges made in confidence that authors will not see these comments;
- it is not necessary to write the review so that it negatively affected other person; to refrain from unfair negative comments and from unreasonable criticism of any works of the competitors mentioned in the manuscript;
- to refrain from the offer to authors to include quotes from works of the reviewer (or his colleagues) only to raise the index of citing the reviewer (or his colleagues) and popularity of the works or works of colleagues; such offers can be made only of real scientific, methodical or editorial reasons for the purpose of improvement of the manuscript;
- to respond quickly to the requests of the magazine connected with this review and to provide the required data; to contact the editorial office of the magazine if after submission of the review any significant moments which could influence the original answer and recommendations become clear; to respond to magazine requests for reviewing of the corrected versions or again submitted manuscripts which they already reviewed;
- appealing to the magazine to provide/explain the missing or incomplete data necessary for reviewing, to refrain from consideration of the manuscript and the accompanying materials in waiting time of instructions from the magazine on those questions which can lead to refusal in a request for reviewing.
