- Email: [email protected]
Erratum to “A performance estimate for the detection of undeclared nuclear-fuel reprocessing by atmospheric 85Kr” [J. Environ. Radioact. 99 (2008) 1341–1348]
Journal of Environmental Radioactivity 100 (2009) 99
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Environmental Radioactivity journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jenvrad
Erratum
Erratum to ‘‘A performance estimate for the detection of undeclared nuclear-fuel reprocessing by atmospheric 85Kr’’ [J. Environ. Radioact. 99 (2008) 1341–1348] R.S. Kemp a, *, C. Schlosser b a b
Program on Science and Global Security, Princeton University, 221 Nassau St., Fl 2, Princeton, NJ 08544, USA ¨ r Strahlenschutz, Postfach 10 01 49, D-38201 Salzgitter, Germany Bundesamt fu
a r t i c l e i n f o Article history: Received 22 September 2008 Accepted 22 September 2008 Available online 8 November 2008
The paper published initially as: Kemp, R.S., 2008. A performance estimate for the detection of undeclared nuclear-fuel reprocessing by atmospheric 85Kr. Journal of Environmental Radioactivity 99, 1341–1348. This is an interesting paper from an important data set. The measurements were made by German and Japanese collaborators, and interpretation of the results has been ongoing for some time. The data were shared with other colleagues in the US. As I understand the history, over several years at least some parts of the data set were released into the public domain in the form of several publications. At the time this paper was under review by JER, the corresponding author felt that the data were in the public domain. There was some concern about this assumption. Although the analysis was done by Kemp, early drafts of the paper were reviewed by the German collaborators, and they provided valuable input. Kemp initially proposed Schlosser be
DOI of original article: 10.1016/j.jenvrad.2008.04.008. * Corresponding author. Tel.: þ1 609 258 4684; fax: þ1 609 258 3661. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (R.S. Kemp), [email protected] (C. Schlosser). 0265-931X/$ – see front matter Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jenvrad.2008.09.002
a coauthor, but at the time of submission the issue of authorship was not resolved. The Reviewers were quite positive about the paper. Among other things, Reviewer A said ‘In general, the research results were clearly presented and provide the readers with a methodology that can be applied to other locations’. Reviewer B said ‘This paper is well written and is of current interest. Although I am not aware of any substantial errors there are a few minor corrections and suggestions that you might consider in preparing your final manuscript.’ In retrospect, Kemp and Schlosser have agreed that they should be co-authors. As I understand the issues, this is consistent with the JER perspective (Sheppard, 2003). Reference Sheppard, S.C., 2003. Who gets to be an author . fallout from a recent controversy. Journal of Environmental Radioactivity 68, 89–91.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Environmental Radioactivity journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jenvrad
Erratum
Erratum to ‘‘A performance estimate for the detection of undeclared nuclear-fuel reprocessing by atmospheric 85Kr’’ [J. Environ. Radioact. 99 (2008) 1341–1348] R.S. Kemp a, *, C. Schlosser b a b
Program on Science and Global Security, Princeton University, 221 Nassau St., Fl 2, Princeton, NJ 08544, USA ¨ r Strahlenschutz, Postfach 10 01 49, D-38201 Salzgitter, Germany Bundesamt fu
a r t i c l e i n f o Article history: Received 22 September 2008 Accepted 22 September 2008 Available online 8 November 2008
The paper published initially as: Kemp, R.S., 2008. A performance estimate for the detection of undeclared nuclear-fuel reprocessing by atmospheric 85Kr. Journal of Environmental Radioactivity 99, 1341–1348. This is an interesting paper from an important data set. The measurements were made by German and Japanese collaborators, and interpretation of the results has been ongoing for some time. The data were shared with other colleagues in the US. As I understand the history, over several years at least some parts of the data set were released into the public domain in the form of several publications. At the time this paper was under review by JER, the corresponding author felt that the data were in the public domain. There was some concern about this assumption. Although the analysis was done by Kemp, early drafts of the paper were reviewed by the German collaborators, and they provided valuable input. Kemp initially proposed Schlosser be
DOI of original article: 10.1016/j.jenvrad.2008.04.008. * Corresponding author. Tel.: þ1 609 258 4684; fax: þ1 609 258 3661. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (R.S. Kemp), [email protected] (C. Schlosser). 0265-931X/$ – see front matter Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jenvrad.2008.09.002
a coauthor, but at the time of submission the issue of authorship was not resolved. The Reviewers were quite positive about the paper. Among other things, Reviewer A said ‘In general, the research results were clearly presented and provide the readers with a methodology that can be applied to other locations’. Reviewer B said ‘This paper is well written and is of current interest. Although I am not aware of any substantial errors there are a few minor corrections and suggestions that you might consider in preparing your final manuscript.’ In retrospect, Kemp and Schlosser have agreed that they should be co-authors. As I understand the issues, this is consistent with the JER perspective (Sheppard, 2003). Reference Sheppard, S.C., 2003. Who gets to be an author . fallout from a recent controversy. Journal of Environmental Radioactivity 68, 89–91.