How to Submit a Paper for Publication to the Japanese Journal of Risk Analysis
Enacted by the Executive Board on June 26, 2020
Revised by the Executive Board on March 31, 2022
You can check the latest status of new submissions and other details at the Online
Submission and Review System on the SRAJ website:
https://iap-jp.org/sraj/journal_e/login
I. Submission procedure
1. Follow the procedures of the submission system to enter information about the paperand author/s.
2. When entering basic information, specify the category of document being submitted
in accordance with the Submission Rules.
Original Articles (free of charge up to 10 pages)
Original, previously unpublished papers that summarize the results of theoretical or
empirical research relating to risk whose contents contribute to academic, societal, orindustrial development
Short Articles (free of charge up to 8 pages)
Papers that conform to any of the following definitions:• A news report or progress update of ongoing research on risk-related theory or
research findings• A report of important administrative experience or data of material value that
contributes to the development of risk research• A report of a practical operational method, innovation, or business plan proposal, forsocietal implementation of risk research
Reviews (free of charge up to 12 pages)
Papers designed to offer wide-ranging knowledge in a specific risk-related field or
across multiple associated fields

Topics (free of charge up to 8 pages)• Topical reports about risk-related research, assessment, technology, business, orrelevant academic societies• Reports of the contents of sessions of the Annual Conference of the SRAJ or otherrisk-related symposium
Letter to Editors (free of charge up to 10 pages)
Letters expressing opinions and thoughts relating to risk, comments on papers publishedin the Journal, or minor additions or corrections to one’s own paperBook Reviews (free of charge up to 4 pages)
Reports about books or publications relating to risk
Any other type of requested manuscript (not listed above) should be sent directly
to the Editorial Secretariat and Editor-in-Chief or to your editor-in-charge.
3. When you enter your manuscript information, select at least one field to describe thecontents of the manuscript. The Editorial Committee member in charge and reviewers
will be assigned based on this selection. Select “Not applicable” only in the case of
Editorial or Book Reviews.
oooo

Environmental and health risk
Climate change and disaster riskEngineering and technology risk
Economic and insurance riskooooooooo

Infectious disease risk
Systemic risk
Ecological risk
IT and cyber risk
Risk perception and communication
Risk analysis and assessment methods
Risk management and risk policy
Risk governanceRegulatory scienceoooo

Risk comparison and risk trade-off
Risk countermeasures and crisis management
Societal implementation of risk analysis
Other risk analysis-related topics

4. After creating the manuscript (in MS Word) in accordance with the Manuscript
Preparation Guidelines (including the main text, title, abstract, and keywords), convert
the file to PDF format. Make sure to upload the manuscript as a PDF file.
Note 1) For some types of submitted documents, the review process will be conducted
blindly. For this reason, make sure to delete the names and affiliation information of all
authors before converting the file to PDF. Also, take care to delete names andaffiliations from the properties of the PDF file before submitting it.
5. After it is confirmed that the manuscript has been submitted in accordance with theSubmission Rules and Manuscript Preparation Guidelines, the Editorial Secretariat will
officially receive the manuscript, assign it a Submission No., and send a receipt
notification to the contributor by email.
6. The Editorial Committee decides whether to start reviewing the document. If adocument is judged to require peer review, an Editorial Committee member (editor-incharge) will be assigned to lead the review and the peer review process will begin. Youcan check the status of a review by logging into the Online Submission and Review
System on the SRAJ website.
Note 2) Contributors should carefully read the Submission Rules and Manuscript
Preparation Guidelines and prepare their manuscript in accordance with the instructions.
If you send a manuscript that does not comply with the rules and guidelines, you will
create unnecessary work for editorial staff and you yourself will have to makeadditional effort to revise the manuscript. The publication of the submitted document
will also be delayed.

II. Process after submission (in case of Original Articles, Short Articles, andReviews)
1. Communication of review results

Manuscripts are reviewed by reviewers engaged by the Editorial Committee. (As a rule,two reviewers are engaged), but if there is a difference of opinion about acceptance orrejection, one more reviewer will be added.) The review process will be conducted
anonymously. The Editorial Committee will make one of the following decisions (A toD) based on the results of the review.
A: Accept the manuscript as is (accept)
B: Accept the manuscript after a minor revision is made in response to the comments ofpeer reviewers (minor revision)
C: Re-review the manuscript after it is significantly revised in response to the commentsof peer reviewers (major revision)
D: Reject the manuscript (reject)
It is not possible to publish the paper in the Japanese Journal of Risk Analysis bymaking only minor revisions that can be completed in a short time. (In this case,reviewers’ comments will be sent to you, so make sure to examine them. We strongly
recommend that you revise the paper and resubmit it. The manuscript will be considereda new submission.)
2. Notifications (email)You will be sent a notification email to your registered email address according to theoutcome (A to D) at the following times. In the case of A (accept), when proofreading iscompleted; in the case of B (minor revision), when a revised manuscript is requested; inthe case of C (major revision), when a revised manuscript is requested; and in the caseof D (reject), when rejection is confirmed. Note that the acceptance (date) of the paper
will be established when the review is completed in the case of A and when the revisedmanuscript has been submitted and the response to the review results is judged to besatisfactory in the case of B.
(If a revised manuscript is not submitted, a reminder will be sent to the registered email
address in the fourth month. After six months have passed, the manuscript will bedeleted from the system.)
3. Submitting a manuscript for printing

Accepted manuscripts should be revised for layout and appearance by changing theformat according to the Manuscript Preparation Guidelines (e.g., how to write
references) and then sent to the SRAJ Editorial Secretariat <srajedit@kokusaibunken.jp> as an email attachment instead of using the Online Submission
and Review System. The subject of the email should be “Society for Risk Analysis
Japan Paper Submission SRA XXXX (Submission No.).” Whenever you contact theEditorial Secretariat, make sure to quote the applicable Submission No. Please make thelayout or appearance-related revisions promptly, in accordance with the instructions ofthe Editorial Secretariat. If the submission is not completed by the specified deadline,
acceptance will be canceled.
4. Journal publication
Accepted papers will be published in the next (possible) issue of the Japanese Journalof Risk Analysis.
III. Peer review process
1. Peer reviews and other reviews are conducted by the Review Committee Chair, theeditor-in-charge, and reviewers.
2. Reviewers are selected for each paper by the Review Committee Chair and the editorin-charge. Manuscripts that do not require peer review are reviewed by the Editor-inChief and the Review Committee Chair.
3. The Editorial Committee will confirm whether a submitted paper is subject to peer
review as a JJRA paper.
4. If a paper is subject to peer review, the Editor-in-Chief will assign a member of theEditorial Committee to serve as the editor-in-charge of the paper.
5. The editor-in-charge will check the information about the paper and the paper for
review (manuscript), and request candidate reviewers to review the paper. (As a rule,
there are two reviewers, but if there is a difference of opinion regarding acceptance orrejection, one more reviewer will be added.)6. The candidate reviewers will view the abstract of the paper for review by clicking aURL in an email from the editor-in-charge. From the same website, they will then reply
to indicate whether they accept or reject the review.
7. Reviewers who accept to undertake the peer review will be able to download detailed
information about the paper for review.
8. The reviewers start reviewing the paper.
9. When the reviewers finish their reviews, they will create a report on the website
dedicated to reviewers. If they have any comments, they can write them in thecomments field before uploading their review report.
10. The editor-in-charge checks the review report and the comments of the reviewers
and in some cases adds his/her own additional comments, before making a review
decision (accept / minor revision / major revision / reject).
11. If a revision is requested, the author will send the revised manuscript to the editorin-charge by email at a later date.

IV. Guide to Reviewing Research Papers (Original Articles/Short Articles) (forreviewers)
1. Reviews and inquiries
Peer reviewers should consider the following matters.
(1) Is the scope of the paper appropriate for this journal (scope)?
(2) Are there any obvious errors (correctness)?
(3) Does the paper contribute to academic, societal, or industrial development(usefulness)?
(4) Is the paper easy to understand (clarity)?

(5) (Especially for Original Articles) Does the paper contain any new or novel elements(originality)?
It is the policy of this Journal to actively accept academic reports as well as reports
with interdisciplinary content that include societal or industrial applications.
Considering the interdisciplinary nature of risk research (the purpose for which theSRAJ was established), when making judgments, special attention should be paid towhether the paper can be understood by researchers and readers in other fields. (It may
be necessary to include advice or recommendations on issues of expression, e.g.,summarization style, use of idiomatic language). Since the inquiry needs to consider
deficiencies in the paper, be careful not to provide excessive guidance about content,such as requesting new descriptions that deviate significantly from the contents of thesubmitted manuscript. Also, to reduce the number of days required for reviewing, do
not omit any questions in your initial inquiry. As a rule, you should reach a conclusion
on acceptance or rejection in no more than two reviews.
2. Returning papers
If more than one reviewer finds a paper unacceptable in accordance with criterion (1) inthe previous section, the paper will be returned. When a paper is returned, the reasonsfor the judgments made independently by the reviewers will be attached. For thisreason, please cooperate by observing the following points.
(1) Indicate the reason for rejection in a document, using easy-to-understand language.
(2) If the contents of the paper are publicly known or have been published previously,
make sure to provide specific references as evidence.
(3) Take care to avoid subjective and personal opinions, especially in the assessment ofusefulness (criterion (3) above).
3. Submissions to other journals
If it is found that before publication in this Journal (JJRA) a paper with the samecontents has been submitted to another “public publication,” the paper will not be
published in the Journal, as a rule. However, the definition of “public publication” here
includes domestic and foreign books, journals, and the bulletins of a government
agency, educational institution, company, etc., and, as a rule, it excludes any materials
like abstracts or proceedings for oral presentations at academic conferences or study

meetings of the SRAJ or other academic societies, and materials similar to patentgazettes and other kinds of patent publications.
4. Judgment results by criteria
The overall judgment should be selected using the review system. For details about
judgment results by criteria, refer to “Overall Assessment” below and describe thereason for your review results in the free-response field on the system.
Overall assessment(1) (Especially for Original Articles) Is there originality? (any new contents? / any
advances in generality or practicality? / even if results are as expected, is there any
significant point of verification?)(2) Is the paper useful (academic/societal/industrial)?
(3) Does the paper offer any new theories, experimental techniques, technologies, etc.,
worthy of attention?
(4) Is the title of the paper appropriate?
(5) Are the contents of the abstract sufficient?
(6) Is the paper too long for the contents it offers?
(7) Is the text of the paper clearly written and does the paper offer sufficient detailed
information (about purpose/significance/results/assumptions and conditions/logic andcalculation process/figures and tables, etc.)?
(8) Is the scientific terminology appropriate?
(9) Are the logic, formulas, and experimental procedures scientifically reliable enough?
(10) Are all of the research findings that need to be reported included in the paper, or isonly a part of the research reported?
5. Reviewer comments (introduction and suggested revisions)In the comments field where the results of judgments by criteria are described above,
indicate (1) overall comments and (2) specific comments. Also, for each specificcomment, indicate the applicable part of the paper (e.g., page, line, figure/table number)and write your opinion and the reason for your judgment for each comment.