Citation

Goerlandt F, Reniers G. Safety Sci. 2017; 98: 12-16.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2017, Elsevier Publishing)

DOI

10.1016/j.ssci.2017.04.008

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

In a recent letter to the editor, Flage and Aven (2017) provide a number of comments on one of our articles, which focuses on the assessment of uncertainty in risk diagrams (Goerlandt and Reniers, 2016). Their comments mainly address our remarks concerning ambiguity in the qualitative uncertainty assessment scheme proposed in Flage and Aven (2009), but some additional comments are also made on the work by Goerlandt and Montewka (2015a, 2015b), mainly related to the assessment of evidential biases.

We strongly believe that critical reflections on published articles and discussions about fundamental issues are essential to improve the current state-of-art in risk research. One of the writers of the letter to the editor has in earlier work called for such contributions (Aven and Zio, 2014). Considering as well that there currently is no very strongly established culture of discussion on key ideas and concepts in risk research, an issue raised as well e.g. by Rosa (2010), we appreciate the efforts made by the Safety Science Editorial Board to stimulate such discussion by providing a platform for this kind of contributions.

Thus, we are pleased to receive some relevant and thoughtful comments on our work by Roger Flage and Terje Aven. Upon invitation by the Editor, we are happy to continue this discussion by providing a response to their letter...

Language: en