- Email: [email protected]
What's the Journal of Environmental Radioactivity up to?
Journal of Environmental Radioactivity 54 (2001) 201–204
Millennial Editorial Series
What’s the Journal of Environmental Radioactivity up to? Alan Walton 5516 Island Park Drive, Manotick, Ontario K4M 1J2, Canada
As readers are aware, the members of the editorial board of the Journal were solicited (if not browbeaten!) by the editor some months ago to contribute a short article on a topic of interest or, indeed, of concern to them. From my perspective I hesitated greatly before committing myself, largely because I did not feel very comfortable writing about a research topic that so many of you are much more likely to be expert in than myself. What did interest me greatly, however, since the inception of the Journal more than 16 years ago, was the quality of the papers and the subject areas that were being covered by our contributors. I was particularly concerned also by the notion that we may be reinventing the wheel in many areas that had been subjects of considerable research during earlier periods, e.g. the 1950 s and 1960 s, a point already noted in an editorial contribution by one of my colleagues (Aarkrog, 2000). I decided, therefore, to try and make some quantitative observations on these subjects and write up my thoughts for your perusal. After several attempts to classify the published papers, I realized that it was not easy to do so in a rigid and quantitative manner. I trust, however, that you will bear with me in this respect and give me a little poetic license in this evaluation. The areas that led to these difficulties will become very evident as you read further. Over the 16 years since the first volume came to press, there have been almost 900 papers published in the Journal. The current rate of about 100 papers per year represents a considerable jump in the rate of publication over the early years and this number continues to increase. As a reviewer, and being absorbed by the need to maintain a high quality in the scientific nature of the contributions, I was interested in the nature of the papers and how this may have changed with time. I chose (without any justification other than to smooth out annual differences somewhat) to examine the data over 3 year periods starting from 1984 to 1986. At the outset I examined the environmental media that the community was investigating, i.e. atmospheric, terrestrial and marine, and, to no-one’s surprise,
E-mail address: [email protected] (A. Walton). 0265-931X/01/$ - see front matter # 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: S 0 2 6 5 - 9 3 1 X ( 0 0 ) 0 0 1 2 9 - 6
202
A. Walton / J. Environ. Radioactivity 54 (2001) 201–204
I imagine, the number of studies being reported in the terrestrial sector was far in excess of those being reported for the marine or atmospheric environments. Indeed, we have almost a constant fraction of between 65 and 75% of all papers concerned with the terrestrial component, 5–10% with the atmosphere and the remainder, 20–25%, dealing with marine studies. The figures are skewed by the publication of special volumes dealing with a restricted subject, e.g. the Special Edition dealing with the Black Sea, which increase the percentage of papers published in a given sector at a given time. What is surprising, however, is the relative constancy of the fractional distribution of papers in the three media over the 16 year period. As to the ‘‘radioactivity component’’, I thought that it would be useful to examine the papers that were being published in three areas, viz. natural radioactivity, weapons disseminated radioactivity and radioactive nuclides that were primarily derived from their release in ‘‘fuel cycle operations’’. This division is a bit ambiguous, I admit, in that it was difficult on occasions to distinguish between the latter two divisions on the basis of the nuclides alone. With further reading of the papers concerned, this proved to be less difficult when the motivation of the authors became evident. After the Chernobyl disaster, for example, there were many papers published relating to the behavior of cesium-137 and cesium-134 isotopes. Although some of the longer-lived cesium isotope being assayed was obviously of weapons testing origin, the motivating factors behind the investigation were clearly related to the Chernobyl reactor accident. These particular types of study were therefore assigned to the fuel cycle operations sector. As a result of this exercise, 60–70% of the studies reported were in this latter category. The majority of these are concerned with the cesium isotopes because of their obvious importance from a radiological health perspective as well as the relative ease with which they can be measured. Those papers devoted to natural radioactive nuclides in our environment, e.g. radium-226, polonium-210, thorium-230 and other members of the uranium–thorium series, have been on the increase in recent years, concomitant with a corresponding decrease in the numbers of papers devoted to studies of weaponsderived radioactivity. This finding is probably not a great surprise when one takes into account the existing ban on the testing of nuclear weapons. It is of some interest, however, to note that the ‘‘slack’’ is being redirected to the study of the natural radioactive nuclides in our environment to a degree that they now surpass those that deal with weapons-testing debris, a circumstance that reverses that which existed 15 years ago. Although somewhat ironic, this observation might serve, perhaps, to impress upon us the idea that this is where we should have put the majority of our efforts in the first place since natural radionuclide behavior gives us the key information needed to comprehend the behavior of nuclides in the other two categories. As to the investigations that could be assigned to the effects of the Chernobyl disaster, it is clear that the numbers of papers associated with this topic have been on the decline over the past 7 to 8 years. For the most part, the contents of these publications tend to stand alone in that they refer, very rarely, to findings on radioactive fallout that may have been published a couple of decades ago. The actual number of ‘‘Chernobyl’’ contributions accepted by the Journal reached its peak during the 3-year period, 1990–1992. There was a modest decline in the following three-year period, 1993–1995, followed by a substantial drop to the present level of
203
A. Walton / J. Environ. Radioactivity 54 (2001) 201–204
15% of the total number of publications. At its peak, the percentage rose as high as 40–45% of all published papers. It may be surprising to colleagues in some parts of the world that there are still a significant number of us who continue the endeavors to broaden the understanding of the environmental behavior of the radioactivity released from this 1986 disaster. For those who live near the site and in other contaminated regions in Europe, however, the real and potential effects of the disaster continue to pose radiological problems of serious concern. Last year the Journal featured an article written by the editor that laid out the future priorities for authors (Baxter, 1999). In particular, he cited the need for papers to be truly scientific in style and content, rather than being, for example, just lists of data without adequate interpretation etc. In this communication I have tried to quantify the various kinds of papers that have been published over the years and the changes in direction for a number of different categories of papers as shown in Table 1. Although it is difficult, at times, to be quite sure of the classification of a given paper, whether it be modeling, mechanistic, or a survey etc., it is hoped that this will not radically change the conclusions that may be drawn from this analysis. Modeling papers were considered to be those that were devoted primarily to a mathematical expression of the events that were found to occur in the environmental studies undertaken. From time to time a piece of work has been carried out and, by way of interpreting the results, the authors may have had recourse to using a model. Generally, such a paper was considered to be a mechanism study rather than a modeling study. A survey paper generally consists of a collection of environmental data designed to establish, amongst other possibilities, the environmental baseline or background level of a particular nuclide or series of radioactive nuclides. Some interpretation is often added relating to the potential radiological hazard of the background radioactivity or to its geochemical/environmental behavior. While this could be considered to be ‘‘mechanistic’’ in character I have tended to try and establish the original objective of the paper to see whether it was to carry out a survey or whether it was to investigate a mechanism or some other postulate. Table 1 shows the results of this analysis, by category, for the various 3-year periods since the Journal came into being. When examining this table it is not evident that the rate of publication of papers has been increasing very substantially over the years. During the past 7 years since 1993, for example, the number of pages published has, in fact, risen from less than
Table 1 Occurrence (%) by type of study
Modeling Mechanism Surveys Reviews Techniques Health
1984–86
1987–89
1990–92
1993–95
1996–98
1999–00
10 55 20 10 5 }
10 30 50 5 55 55
10 35 40 5 5 5
10 40 45 55 5 55
15 35 40 5 5 55
15 35 40 5 5 55
204
A. Walton / J. Environ. Radioactivity 54 (2001) 201–204
2000 per year to a rate approaching 4000 per year. Thus, although there has not been any profound change in the relative quantities of papers being published, there has been a significant increase in production. If there are any real trends, beyond that of quantity, it is that more ‘‘modeling’’ papers are finding their way to press than there were 10 years ago with some corresponding fall in ‘‘mechanism’’ and ‘‘survey’’ papers. The research community, as a whole, now seems to be placing much more emphasis on the use of models in their description and interpretation of the environmental behavior of radioactive nuclides. To paraphrase the editor (see his paper cited above), this development will lead to a ‘‘happier and saner’’ bunch of referees and for that we can be quite thankful The overall composition of Journal papers, as it stands today, does represent a very wide range of subjects that are of considerable interest. This, of course, reflects how the Journal is evolving, at the present time, and, in some measure, where it is intending to go in the years ahead. In his review of future priorities at JER (Baxter, 1999), the editor emphasized the need to give more attention to ‘‘the interaction of our science (environmental radioactivity) with society as a whole’’. He cited the importance of the socio-economic aspects and the necessity of being able to convey to the general public a better understanding of the health effects of environmental radioactivity. As we see from the results of this study, we have quite a way to go to meet these objectives. Papers dealing with health-related topics are currently running at a low percentage of all publications and there has been only one paper published to date that discussed the financial implications of undertaking remedial measures in a contaminated region. To broaden, or change the emphasis in, the range of topics currently finding their way to press may prove to be rather difficult because of the now well-established nature of the Journal. Environmental radioactivity may be a title that doesn’t encourage the submission of large numbers of papers dealing with the ‘‘health and socio-economic aspects’’ of the subject. To accomplish this desirable change in focus will probably require a widely disseminated restatement of objectives and editorial policy, further publication initiatives1 or the creation of another Journal (a suggestion that it is not likely to be looked upon with a great deal of favor these days).
References Aarkrog, A. (2000). Trends in radioecology at the turn of the millennium. Journal of Environmental Radioactivity, 49, 123–125. Baxter, M. S. (1999). Future priorities at JER. Journal of Environmental Radioactivity, 42, 1–5.
1 Editor’s postscript: Although we neither expect nor wish any major sudden shifts in JER’s areas of coverage, we are indeed planning some new developments in the health and socioeconomic aspects of the subject, including special issues and books. There have also been a few corresponding changes in editorial board composition. However, the overall direction of the journal should and will remain primarily in the hands of the scientists in the field who make up JER’s authorship/readership. Murdoch Baxter, JER
Millennial Editorial Series
What’s the Journal of Environmental Radioactivity up to? Alan Walton 5516 Island Park Drive, Manotick, Ontario K4M 1J2, Canada
As readers are aware, the members of the editorial board of the Journal were solicited (if not browbeaten!) by the editor some months ago to contribute a short article on a topic of interest or, indeed, of concern to them. From my perspective I hesitated greatly before committing myself, largely because I did not feel very comfortable writing about a research topic that so many of you are much more likely to be expert in than myself. What did interest me greatly, however, since the inception of the Journal more than 16 years ago, was the quality of the papers and the subject areas that were being covered by our contributors. I was particularly concerned also by the notion that we may be reinventing the wheel in many areas that had been subjects of considerable research during earlier periods, e.g. the 1950 s and 1960 s, a point already noted in an editorial contribution by one of my colleagues (Aarkrog, 2000). I decided, therefore, to try and make some quantitative observations on these subjects and write up my thoughts for your perusal. After several attempts to classify the published papers, I realized that it was not easy to do so in a rigid and quantitative manner. I trust, however, that you will bear with me in this respect and give me a little poetic license in this evaluation. The areas that led to these difficulties will become very evident as you read further. Over the 16 years since the first volume came to press, there have been almost 900 papers published in the Journal. The current rate of about 100 papers per year represents a considerable jump in the rate of publication over the early years and this number continues to increase. As a reviewer, and being absorbed by the need to maintain a high quality in the scientific nature of the contributions, I was interested in the nature of the papers and how this may have changed with time. I chose (without any justification other than to smooth out annual differences somewhat) to examine the data over 3 year periods starting from 1984 to 1986. At the outset I examined the environmental media that the community was investigating, i.e. atmospheric, terrestrial and marine, and, to no-one’s surprise,
E-mail address: [email protected] (A. Walton). 0265-931X/01/$ - see front matter # 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: S 0 2 6 5 - 9 3 1 X ( 0 0 ) 0 0 1 2 9 - 6
202
A. Walton / J. Environ. Radioactivity 54 (2001) 201–204
I imagine, the number of studies being reported in the terrestrial sector was far in excess of those being reported for the marine or atmospheric environments. Indeed, we have almost a constant fraction of between 65 and 75% of all papers concerned with the terrestrial component, 5–10% with the atmosphere and the remainder, 20–25%, dealing with marine studies. The figures are skewed by the publication of special volumes dealing with a restricted subject, e.g. the Special Edition dealing with the Black Sea, which increase the percentage of papers published in a given sector at a given time. What is surprising, however, is the relative constancy of the fractional distribution of papers in the three media over the 16 year period. As to the ‘‘radioactivity component’’, I thought that it would be useful to examine the papers that were being published in three areas, viz. natural radioactivity, weapons disseminated radioactivity and radioactive nuclides that were primarily derived from their release in ‘‘fuel cycle operations’’. This division is a bit ambiguous, I admit, in that it was difficult on occasions to distinguish between the latter two divisions on the basis of the nuclides alone. With further reading of the papers concerned, this proved to be less difficult when the motivation of the authors became evident. After the Chernobyl disaster, for example, there were many papers published relating to the behavior of cesium-137 and cesium-134 isotopes. Although some of the longer-lived cesium isotope being assayed was obviously of weapons testing origin, the motivating factors behind the investigation were clearly related to the Chernobyl reactor accident. These particular types of study were therefore assigned to the fuel cycle operations sector. As a result of this exercise, 60–70% of the studies reported were in this latter category. The majority of these are concerned with the cesium isotopes because of their obvious importance from a radiological health perspective as well as the relative ease with which they can be measured. Those papers devoted to natural radioactive nuclides in our environment, e.g. radium-226, polonium-210, thorium-230 and other members of the uranium–thorium series, have been on the increase in recent years, concomitant with a corresponding decrease in the numbers of papers devoted to studies of weaponsderived radioactivity. This finding is probably not a great surprise when one takes into account the existing ban on the testing of nuclear weapons. It is of some interest, however, to note that the ‘‘slack’’ is being redirected to the study of the natural radioactive nuclides in our environment to a degree that they now surpass those that deal with weapons-testing debris, a circumstance that reverses that which existed 15 years ago. Although somewhat ironic, this observation might serve, perhaps, to impress upon us the idea that this is where we should have put the majority of our efforts in the first place since natural radionuclide behavior gives us the key information needed to comprehend the behavior of nuclides in the other two categories. As to the investigations that could be assigned to the effects of the Chernobyl disaster, it is clear that the numbers of papers associated with this topic have been on the decline over the past 7 to 8 years. For the most part, the contents of these publications tend to stand alone in that they refer, very rarely, to findings on radioactive fallout that may have been published a couple of decades ago. The actual number of ‘‘Chernobyl’’ contributions accepted by the Journal reached its peak during the 3-year period, 1990–1992. There was a modest decline in the following three-year period, 1993–1995, followed by a substantial drop to the present level of
203
A. Walton / J. Environ. Radioactivity 54 (2001) 201–204
15% of the total number of publications. At its peak, the percentage rose as high as 40–45% of all published papers. It may be surprising to colleagues in some parts of the world that there are still a significant number of us who continue the endeavors to broaden the understanding of the environmental behavior of the radioactivity released from this 1986 disaster. For those who live near the site and in other contaminated regions in Europe, however, the real and potential effects of the disaster continue to pose radiological problems of serious concern. Last year the Journal featured an article written by the editor that laid out the future priorities for authors (Baxter, 1999). In particular, he cited the need for papers to be truly scientific in style and content, rather than being, for example, just lists of data without adequate interpretation etc. In this communication I have tried to quantify the various kinds of papers that have been published over the years and the changes in direction for a number of different categories of papers as shown in Table 1. Although it is difficult, at times, to be quite sure of the classification of a given paper, whether it be modeling, mechanistic, or a survey etc., it is hoped that this will not radically change the conclusions that may be drawn from this analysis. Modeling papers were considered to be those that were devoted primarily to a mathematical expression of the events that were found to occur in the environmental studies undertaken. From time to time a piece of work has been carried out and, by way of interpreting the results, the authors may have had recourse to using a model. Generally, such a paper was considered to be a mechanism study rather than a modeling study. A survey paper generally consists of a collection of environmental data designed to establish, amongst other possibilities, the environmental baseline or background level of a particular nuclide or series of radioactive nuclides. Some interpretation is often added relating to the potential radiological hazard of the background radioactivity or to its geochemical/environmental behavior. While this could be considered to be ‘‘mechanistic’’ in character I have tended to try and establish the original objective of the paper to see whether it was to carry out a survey or whether it was to investigate a mechanism or some other postulate. Table 1 shows the results of this analysis, by category, for the various 3-year periods since the Journal came into being. When examining this table it is not evident that the rate of publication of papers has been increasing very substantially over the years. During the past 7 years since 1993, for example, the number of pages published has, in fact, risen from less than
Table 1 Occurrence (%) by type of study
Modeling Mechanism Surveys Reviews Techniques Health
1984–86
1987–89
1990–92
1993–95
1996–98
1999–00
10 55 20 10 5 }
10 30 50 5 55 55
10 35 40 5 5 5
10 40 45 55 5 55
15 35 40 5 5 55
15 35 40 5 5 55
204
A. Walton / J. Environ. Radioactivity 54 (2001) 201–204
2000 per year to a rate approaching 4000 per year. Thus, although there has not been any profound change in the relative quantities of papers being published, there has been a significant increase in production. If there are any real trends, beyond that of quantity, it is that more ‘‘modeling’’ papers are finding their way to press than there were 10 years ago with some corresponding fall in ‘‘mechanism’’ and ‘‘survey’’ papers. The research community, as a whole, now seems to be placing much more emphasis on the use of models in their description and interpretation of the environmental behavior of radioactive nuclides. To paraphrase the editor (see his paper cited above), this development will lead to a ‘‘happier and saner’’ bunch of referees and for that we can be quite thankful The overall composition of Journal papers, as it stands today, does represent a very wide range of subjects that are of considerable interest. This, of course, reflects how the Journal is evolving, at the present time, and, in some measure, where it is intending to go in the years ahead. In his review of future priorities at JER (Baxter, 1999), the editor emphasized the need to give more attention to ‘‘the interaction of our science (environmental radioactivity) with society as a whole’’. He cited the importance of the socio-economic aspects and the necessity of being able to convey to the general public a better understanding of the health effects of environmental radioactivity. As we see from the results of this study, we have quite a way to go to meet these objectives. Papers dealing with health-related topics are currently running at a low percentage of all publications and there has been only one paper published to date that discussed the financial implications of undertaking remedial measures in a contaminated region. To broaden, or change the emphasis in, the range of topics currently finding their way to press may prove to be rather difficult because of the now well-established nature of the Journal. Environmental radioactivity may be a title that doesn’t encourage the submission of large numbers of papers dealing with the ‘‘health and socio-economic aspects’’ of the subject. To accomplish this desirable change in focus will probably require a widely disseminated restatement of objectives and editorial policy, further publication initiatives1 or the creation of another Journal (a suggestion that it is not likely to be looked upon with a great deal of favor these days).
References Aarkrog, A. (2000). Trends in radioecology at the turn of the millennium. Journal of Environmental Radioactivity, 49, 123–125. Baxter, M. S. (1999). Future priorities at JER. Journal of Environmental Radioactivity, 42, 1–5.
1 Editor’s postscript: Although we neither expect nor wish any major sudden shifts in JER’s areas of coverage, we are indeed planning some new developments in the health and socioeconomic aspects of the subject, including special issues and books. There have also been a few corresponding changes in editorial board composition. However, the overall direction of the journal should and will remain primarily in the hands of the scientists in the field who make up JER’s authorship/readership. Murdoch Baxter, JER