This site tries to get the nuclear fuel cycle right, from the mine to the repository. It will not always succeed. Figures go out of date, plants change status, and some sources turn out to be wrong. When that happens we want to know, and we want readers to see what changed.
Primary sources decide
When two sources disagree, we go to the one closest to the fact. For a licence, that is the regulator’s own record. For a company’s plans, it is the company’s filing. For production or demand figures, it is the official statistic, such as the Red Book or the Energy Information Administration. A news report, a trade summary or an expert’s recollection can point us to the right document, but it does not outrank it.
So the most useful correction is one that comes with a link to the primary source. If you cannot point to one, tell us anyway; we will look.
Who can suggest a correction
Anyone. Many of the people best placed to spot an error work in the industry, for a regulator, or for a company named in an article. That is welcome. We ask only that you tell us your affiliation, so that we can weigh the suggestion fairly and, if we credit you, say who you are. A disclosed affiliation does not count against a correction. An undisclosed one does.
What we will not publish
Corrections fix facts. They are not a route for advocacy or marketing. We will not add claims about a company’s prospects, a product’s merits or a policy position, however well argued, as a “correction”. If the record shows a plant is licensed, we will say so; whether it should have been is a different kind of question.
How a correction is reviewed
Send your suggestion through the submission form (link below), or by email to corrections@thenuclearfuelcycle.com. You will get an automatic acknowledgement when it arrives. Jeff Hill reviews every suggestion. He checks the passage against the source you give and against the other sources the article relies on.
That takes time, and some checks need a document we have to find. When he has decided, Jeff Hill will write to you from Jeff@thenuclearfuelcycle.com to say what we found and what, if anything, we changed. If we decide the article was right, we will say why.
How changes appear
Every article that has been corrected carries a change log at the end, above the notes. Each entry gives the date, what was changed, and why, in a line or two. We do not quietly rewrite a figure. Small fixes such as a typo or a broken link are logged too, more briefly.
Credit
If your suggestion leads to a change, we credit you in the change log by name and affiliation. If you would rather not be named, say so on the form; the correction will be made either way.
Longer contributions
Sometimes a correction grows into a longer discussion or a proposal for submission: a case that the article has the question wrong, not just a number. That is better made in your own words. Longer pieces of this kind can be offered as a Guest Opinion, published under your byline with your affiliation stated, and held to the same sourcing standard as the rest of the site. Contributors from industry who write for the site are named the same way.
