Traffic safety journals

Below you can find the list of journals that publish the large majority of traffic safety articles. Depending on your topic, you can submit your papers also to more general journals or those which focus on very different fields of science. For example, many studies about driver fatigue/sleepiness have been published in Journal of Sleep Research, and Sleep. Ergonomics and Human Factors could also be relevant journals in some cases.

Please note that the below list includes several university-based journals. They are all open access without publishing fees. This is great so you might consider submitting your papers to such journals. The only problem with these journals is that their editorial boards might not be as diverse as we would expect in 2023 – but that’s something that can be (easily) changed.

Accident Analysis & Prevention (AAP)

Publisher: Elsevier
Years: 1969->
Editor in chief: Helai Huang, PhD, Central South University, Changsha, China
Open access: Hybrid
IF (if you care): 6.376
My (very personal) comments and observations: The most prestigious traffic safety journal. Previous EiCs include big names such as Frank A. Haight and Rune Elvik. Please note that the journal publishes papers dealing with accidental injury. That means that road suicide studies will be immediately desk rejected – as I have unfortunately learned. The history of the journal can be found in the article published in 2020. Acceptance rate: 13%. Personally, I believe the previous EiC had published too many research articles during his editorship. Here you can find our systematic review about self-publishing.

Active Travel Studies

Publisher: the University of Westminster
Years: 2020->
Editor in chief: Tom Cohen, Active Travel Academy, University of Westminster, UK
Open access: Yes. All fees are paid for by the University of Westminster.
IF (if you care):
My (very personal) comments and observations: University-based journal. Run by people from the the Active Travel Academy at the University of Westminster. I had a very bad experience with the journal and with the Active Travel Academy’s Media Awards run by the same people.

IATSS Research

Publisher: Elsevier
Years: 1977->
Editor in chief: S. Kamijo, The University of Tokyo Institute of Industrial Science, Tokyo, Japan
Open access: Hybrid
IF (if you care): ?
My (very personal) comments and observations: The official Journal of the International Association of Traffic and Safety Sciences. I was one of associate editors from 2015 to 2023. Large and diverse editorial board. Not a major journal, but don’t think you will easily publish there. Welcomes traffic safety papers.

Injury Prevention (IP)

Publisher: BMJ
Years: 1995->
Editor in chief: Caroline Finch, Deputy Vice-Chancellor of Research and Vice-President at Edith Cowan University in Australia
Open access: Hybrid; open access for 3,090 GBP.
IF (if you care): 3.775
My (very personal) comments and observations: The journal is famous for banning “accidents” in 2001. My colleague and coauthor Barry Pless was the coauthor of that editorial as well as the founding Editor-in-Chief. Acceptance rate: 33%.

International Journal of Injury Control and Safety Promotion (ICSP)

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Years: 1994->
Editor in chief: Geetam Tiwari, Transport Research and Injury Prevention Programme, Indian Institute of Technology, New Delhi India, and Shrikant Bangdiwala, Professor, Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact Director, Statistics Department, Population Health Research Institute McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
Open access: Hybrid
IF (if you care): 2.603
My (very personal) comments and observations: Formerly known as Injury Control and Safety Promotion (2000 – 2004) and International Journal for Consumer and Product Safety (1994 – 1999). I had bad experiences with this journal, but cannot remember anymore what happened:) “ICSP encompasses all causes of fatal and non-fatal injury, including injuries related to…transport…” Acceptance rate: 17%.

Journal of Cycling and Micromobility Research

Publisher: Elsevier
Years: 2023->
Co Editors in chief: Prof. Dr. Eva Heinen, PhD., TU Dortmund University, Dortmund, Germany and Professor Jeppe Rich, PhD, Technical University of Denmark, Kgs Lyngby, Denmark
Open access: Hybrid; Open access publishing fee: $1800
IF (if you care):
My (very personal) comments and observations: New Elsevier journal. I am very concerned about the way editors will treat papers that do not align with their attitudes and values. One of the co editors-in-chief wrote in their inaugural editorial: “However, in my career as a transport modeler, the smaller projects have most of the time been the better ones. My mission with this journal is to pass this message to those who decide, and to initiate an evidence-based bottom-up process for our infrastructure.”

Journal of Public Transportation

Publisher: Elsevier
Years: 1996->
Editor in chief: Robert Bertini, Ph.D., Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon, United States of America
Open access: Open access; publishing fee: $1790
IF (if you care): 37.667 (this is obviously a mistake)
My (very personal) comments and observations: Don’t know anything about this journal. I assume they welcome traffic safety articles dealing with public transportation. The journal operates a single-blind review process.

Journal of Road Safety (JRS)

Publisher: Australasian College of Road Safety (ACRS)
Years: 2005->
Editor in chief: Prof Raphael Grzebieta, Univeristy of New South Wales, and Dr Marilyn Johnson – Victoria, Australia, Australasian College of Road Safety, Senior Researcher, Monash University
Open access: The journal is published as open access. Papers are published free of charge.
IF (if you care): ?
My (very personal) comments and observations: “The JRS accepts papers from all countries and regions around the world and publishes a diverse range of high-quality papers on road safety from researchers, policymakers, program implementers, and other road safety experts.”

Journal of Safety Research (JSR)

Publisher: Elsevier
Years: 1982->
Editor in chief: T. Planek, National Safety Council, Itasca, Illinois, USA
Open access: Hybrid
IF (if you care): 4.264
My (very personal) comments and observations: I had bad experiences with this journal. Feels like it is run by a very closed community. The journal uses double-blind peer-review.

Journal of Transport and Health (JTH)

Publisher: Elsevier
Years: 2014->
Editor in chief: Charles B.A. Musselwhite, PhD, PGCert (Distinction), Bsc (Hons) Aberystwyth University, Department of Psychology, Ceredigion, United Kingdom
Open access: Hybrid
IF (if you care): 3.613
My (very personal) comments and observations: Mixed feelings about this journal. I’ve published there, but also had very bad experiences. The journal uses double-blind peer-review. Please note the following: “There are many journals that focus on transport crashes and injuries, any unintentional injuries, and engineering; we do not wish to duplicate these. We are therefore restricting the scope of our journal to those that are more public health-focused, are more cross-disciplinary, and do not have an engineering or laboratory basis.” Acceptance rate: 21%.


Publisher: MDPI
Years: 2015->
Editor in chief: Prof. Dr. Raphael Grzebieta, Transport and Road Safety (TARS), University of New South Wales
Open access: Open access; publishing fee: 1600 CHF (Swiss Francs)
IF (if you care): pending
My (very personal) comments and observations: EiC and editorial board are good, but I mean it is a MDPI journal, what can I say. It has 17 pending special issues.

Safety Science (SS)

Publisher: Elsevier
Years: 1991->
Editor in chief: Georgios Boustras, BEng(Hons), MSc, PhD, European University Cyprus, Nicosia, 1516, Lefkosia, Cyprus
Open access: Hybrid
IF (if you care): 6.392
My (very personal) comments and observations: I had bad experiences with this journal. The EiC also extensively (exclusively) publishes in own journal. The journal uses double-blind peer-review, but that does not help much regarding EiC’s submissions because an AE will know who submits the paper and they can choose to invite more favorable reviewers in such cases. Something about the future of the journal can be found in the article published in 2022.

Traffic Injury Prevention (TIP)

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Years: 1991->
Editor in chief: David C. Viano, ProBiomechanics LLC, Bloomfield Hills, MI, USA
Open access: Hybrid
IF (if you care): 2.183
My (very personal) comments and observations: I had good experiences with this journal including editors and reviewers. Peer-review process is relatively fast, the EiC is a reasonable man. However, it seems the EiC also extensively publishes in own journal. This is the third journal (AAP and SS) with such a practice – very difficult for me to understand why is this happening.

Transactions on Transport Sciences

Publisher: Department of Psychology, Faculty of Arts, Palacky University Olomouc, Czech Republic
Years: 2008->
Editor in chief: Ralf Risser, Factum, Austria, and Karel Pospíšil, Transport Research Centre, Czech Republic
Open access: The journal is published as open access. Papers are published free of charge.
IF (if you care): ?
My (very personal) comments and observations: Journal is co-financed by Palacky University in Olomouc institutional support, provided by Ministry of Education, Czech Republic. Good and diverse editorial board (Brazil, Ghana, Israel, Japan etc) including David Shinar (Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Israel). I don’t have experience with this journal although it is already 15 years old. “The editors require authors, reviewers and editorial board members to disclose potential conflicts of interest.” Rejection rate 79% (14.9.2023).

Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives (TRIP)

Publisher: Elsevier
Years: 2019->
Editor in chief: Karl Kim, PhD, University of Hawai’i at Mānoa, Honolulu, Hawaii, United States of America
Open access: Open access; publishing fee: $1330
IF (if you care): ?
My (very personal) comments and observations: If your paper gets rejected in traditional Elsevier journals (AAP, JSR, SS, TRF) then pay and publish here;-) On the other hand, the journals is open to all kind of submissions so you might consider it if your article does not fit to journals with limited focus. Kim is former AAP co-editor-chief.

Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour (TRF)

Publisher: Elsevier
Years: 1998->
Editor in chief: Samuel G. Charlton, The University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand
Open access: Hybrid
IF (if you care): 4.349
My (very personal) comments and observations: The main (and only) traffic psychology journal. Previous EiCs include big names such as its founding editors John A Groeger and Talib Rothengatter. Good Editorial Board (includes me!); however, in my view it should be more diverse. I would dare to say that the journal is open to all kind of transport related submission, even those that lack a psychological approach.

Traffic Safety Research (TSR)

Publisher: Technology and Society, Faculty of Engineering, LTH, Lund University
Years: 2021->
Editor in chief: Aliaksei Laureshyn, Department of Technology & Society, Faculty of Engineering, LTH, Lund University, Sweden
Open access: The journal is published as open access. Papers are published free of charge.
IF (if you care): ?
My (very personal) comments and observations: “Jointly founded in 2021 by researchers from Lund University (Sweden), Delft University of Technology (the Netherlands) and the International Co-operation on Theories and Concepts in Traffic safety (ICTCT) association.” Rune Elvik published three papers in 2022 in this journal. The editor-in-chief and several editorial board members have (had?) major roles in both the journal and ICTCT.


Lähempänä tavoitetta kuin aikoihin. Nollavisio – 0 liikennekuolemaa.

Emme ole vielä nollavisio-tavoitteessa, mutta lähempänä kuin aikoihin. Ennakkotietojen mukaan viime vuonna Suomessa kuoli alle 200 ihmistä tieliikenteessä ensimmäistä kertaa vuoden 1935 jälkeen. Aika näyttää edustaako luku uusien parempien liikenneturvallisuusaikojen alkua vai onko kyseessä vain poikkeus, joka saattaa liittyä koronapandemian aikaiseen ajokäyttäytymisen muutokseen tai ehkä johonkin muuhun.

Kaksisataa kuolonuhria on selvästi vähemmän kuin 600, mikä oli liikennekuolemien vuosittainen määrä kolmekymmentä vuotta sitten Suomessa. Mutta mikä on mielestäsi hyväksyttävä vuosittainen liikennekuolemien määrä?

Muutama vuosi sitten Australiassa lanseerattiin liikenneturvallisuuskampanja nollavisiosta. Esittelemme tässä Viktorian osavaltion version. Siellä on noin miljoona asukasta enemmän kuin Suomessa ja viimeisten viiden vuoden aikana 211–266 vuosittaista tieliikennekuolemaa.

Viktorian liikenneturvallisuuskampanjan videossa toimittaja pysäyttää miehen kadulla ja sanoo: ”Viime vuonna 213 ihmistä kuoli teillämme. Minkä sinä arvelet olevan hyväksyttävämpi luku?” Miehellä kestää hetken miettiä vastausta, kunnes hän sanoo: ”Öö, hyväksyttävä? Ehkä 70?” Sitten hän toistaa hieman varmemmin: ”Luultavasti 70.” Tämän jälkeen toimittaja soittaa kollegalleen, joka tuo 70 ihmistä kulman takaa ja sanoo: ”Tältä näyttää oikeasti 70 ihmistä.” Mies lausahtaa nyt huomattavan tunnekuohun vallassa: ”Sehän on perheeni.” Toimittaja toistaa kysymyksen: ”No, minkä nyt arvelet olevan hyväksyttävä luku vuosittaisille tieliikennekuolemille?” Mies vastaa: ”Nolla.”

Saatat muistaa vastaavan videon Liikenneturvan kampanjasta ”Näe ihminen liikenteessä”. Näiden kampanjoiden pääidea on saada ihmiset tiedostamaan, että vuosittainen tieliikennekuolemien määrä ei ole ainoastaan luku. Se kuvaa oikeita ihmisiä, jotka ovat menettäneet henkensä liikenteessä ja siihen lukuun voi sisältyä perhettäsi ja ystäviäsi. Näin ajatellen ilmiselvä vastaus on, ettei meidän pitäisi hyväksyä yhtään kuolemaa teillämme. Tavoitteen pitää olla nolla – nollavisio.

Nollavisio hyväksyttiin ensimmäisenä Ruotsin parlamentissa vuonna 1997, jonka jälkeen se levisi moniin maihin Suomi mukaan lukien. Nollavision pitkän tähtäimen tavoite on, että kenenkään ei pitäisi kuolla tai vakavasti loukkaantua tieliikenneonnettomuuksissa. Tämän tavoitteen pitäisi toteutua suunnittelemalla turvallinen tieliikennejärjestelmä ja suurilta osin siirtää vastuu tieliikenteen käyttäjiltä tieliikennejärjestelmän suunnittelijoille. Nollavisio huomioi, että ihmiset tekevät virheitä ja tavoitteena on luoda järjestelmä, joka sekä minimoi virheiden määrän että niiden seurausten vakavuuden.

Vaikka monet maat ovat omaksuneet nollavision liikenneturvallisuusstrategiaansa, sitä on myös kritisoitu niin tieteellisessä kirjallisuudessa kuin julkisissa keskusteluissa.

Vuonna 2021 kysyimme muutaman kysymyksen nollavisiosta edustavalta otokselta yli 15-vuotiaita suomalaisia Liikenneturvan aineiston keruun yhteydessä. Suurin osa vastaajista (79,8 %) uskoivat nollavision olevan hyvä tavoite samalla, kun lähes vastaava osuus vastaajista (73,5 %) uskoi, ettei sitä koskaan tulla saavuttamaan (kuva 1). Vuonna 2022 Liikenneturva kysyi lähes saman kysymyksen ja jälleen 84 %:n mielestä nollavisio oli hyvä tavoite.

Kuva 1. Pylväät kuvaavat vastausten jakautumista väittämiin nollavisiosta. Kysely tehtiin edustavalle otokselle suomalaisia vuonna 2021 (N=1025). Kuvaajassa olevat luvut esittävät kunkin vastausvaihtoehdon valinneiden prosenttiosuuksia.

”Nollavisio on epärealistinen” on eräs pääkritiikeistä. Joidenkin mielestä emme tule koskaan saavuttamaan yhteiskuntaa, jossa kukaan ei kuole tai vakavasti loukkaannu teillä, vaikka kuinka yrittäisimme. On aina inhimillisiä tekijöitä tai olosuhteita, jotka johtavat kuolemiin tai vakaviin vammoihin.

Miksi meillä on päämäärä, joka on lähes mahdoton saavuttaa? Onko sellainen päämäärä täysin merkityksetön? Yksinkertainen vastaus on, että eettisistä syistä nolla tieliikennekuolemaa on hyvä ja arvokas päämäärä. Yksikään maa ei ole täysin onnistunut eliminoimaan korruptiota, järjestäytynyttä rikollisuutta, ihmiskauppaa, sukupuolten epätasa-arvoa jne. Tämä ei kuitenkaan tarkoita, että meidän pitäisi hylätä tavoitteemme näiden eliminoimiseen. Yhteiskuntien pitää asettaa tavoitteita, jotka voivat näyttää utopistisilta tai epärealistisilta jossain vaiheessa historiaa, mutta voivat myöhemmin tulla saavutettaviksi. Kuten aikaisemmin on mainittu, 30 vuotta sitten meidän teillämme kuoli vuosittain 600 ihmistä. Nyt tieliikennekuolemia on noin 200 vuodessa. 30 vuoden päästä me voimme ja meidän pitäisi olla hyvin lähellä nollaa.

Teksti: Igor Radun, liikennepsykologian dosentti, Helsingin yliopisto ja Jenni Radun, ympäristöpsykologiantutkija, Turun ammattikorkeakoulu


You should pay tuition fees, I sell something which should be free

Not all politicians are the same. True. However, as someone who comes from the corrupt Balkan, I have my reservations. A simple test of politicians’ credibility is to look whether they just preach, or they act according to what they preach, whether they demand something from others while they try to avoid doing the same.

I don’t like writing about politics and politicians. This time I am making an exception as this ‘case’ relates to higher education, open access, and the reputation of my university. The case is about a politician who wants students to pay tuition fees for their basic (!) studies, and at the same time wants to make (whatever small) money on something that should be freely available online. This politician, as many of us, has received enormous support from the University for his postgraduate (!) studies, and yet he wants to make money by selling his doctoral thesis as a book although the thesis should be freely available online.

The Open Access principles of University of Helsinki clearly state that “Also Master´s and licentiate´s dissertations as well as Doctoral dissertations should be published openly.”

And yet, Meri sells his doctoral thesis for 144€. And it seems to be going quite well for him as the thesis is among the most popular law books of his publisher.

This is actually nothing unusual for monographs published by the Faculty of Law.”For well-grounded reasons, doctoral candidates may apply for a special exemption from publishing their doctoral dissertation electronically. “… “Please note that special exemption should only be applied for if absolutely necessary.” I don’t know what was a “well-grounded reason” in this case and why it “was absolutely necessary” not to publish the thesis open access.

A few years ago, one of professors from the same faculty wrote me that because of funding situation and limited number of permanent positions “In my field, we can no longer compete for the most talented young people.” Knowing that PhD students have really low income, much smaller than a lawyer, it is possible that the faculty in this way ‘compensates’ these “talented young people” for the lost income while they were working on their doctoral thesis. I don’t know.

I asked the dean of the faculty about the special exemption in this case. She wrote me (I share this with her permission):

“The Faculty of Law has a tradition of publishing doctoral theses with professional publishers. We believe that it is a good way to publish as this helps people – also legal professionals and other non-academic professionals – to find the research they need.”

Sounds OK, doesn’t it? However, we live in a digital world with Google search, various online databases, including the one maintained by our university.

Meri’s master thesis (“Yksipuolinen koronmuutosehto liike-elämän luottosopimuksissa”), which is freely available online, has been downloaded 1210 times. I’d say that’s quite impressive for a master thesis. Some of other freely available master and doctoral thesis from the same faculty have been downloaded even more. So, if you are interested in a particular topic and know how to use Google search, you will find what you need.

I don’t know how many copies of his book Meri will sell. Ten? Fifty? Hundreds? I also don’t know what Meri will do with the (whatever small) profit acquired by selling of his doctoral thesis. Perhaps it will be shared with the University. Perhaps he plans to donate it to a charity (e.g., supporting poor students).

What I know is this. I find it ethically problematic that a politician  who wants students to pay tuition fees for their basic (!) university studies at the same time wants to make money on something that should be freely available online. Denying others free access to basic university education, while he had used university resources (e.g., room?, access to literature, supervision, probably participated in courses) for free to get a PhD title… I am pretty sure it is in the society’s interest to have educated work force and that every graduated bachelor or master student is an asset to Finland’s future. On the other hand, as I have previously argued, a PhD is not a title to brag about or to use just to get a better job. Getting a PhD should be a first step in a long-lasting research career.

Finally, I understand this text might be perceived as a personal attack on Otto Meri. I don’t know him, I really don’t care how much money he makes and in what way. Obviously he has done nothing wrong considering the practice of his faculty. While I indeed hope he will never get any power to introduce tuition fees for Finnish young generations, my aim is to perhaps initiate a discussion about whether some faculties are too liberal regarding special (!) exemptions from the open access publishing.

Btw, here you can find Finnish doctoral thesis from my field. As you will see, the most recent ones are open access.