Skip to main content Accessibility help
Review process

This journal uses a single-blind model of peer review. The author does not know the identity of the reviewers, but the reviewers know the identity of the author. 

All stages of the peer review process for The Aeronautical Journal, from receipt to approval, are carried out via the online Editorial Manager system. This is a familiar software platform across academic publishing which is user-friendly and intuitive. 

The review process typically lasts 3-6 months depending on how quickly reviews are obtained and authors can revise their papers.

When a paper is received, it is assigned to an appropriate Associate Editor who invites a minimum of two referees to review the manuscript. Once two reviews have been obtained, the referees’ comments are sent to the corresponding author and, if changes are recommended, they are invited to revise the paper as suggested, unless it is rejected in the first instance.

The authors should upload their revised paper with highlighted or tracked changes and include a separate list of changes or a rebuttal against each point which has been raised. This will enable the referees to see easily where changes have been made and speed up the review process.

The revised manuscript will be sent back to the original referees. If the referees suggest further
improvements to the paper, these will be passed back to the authors and the paper revised again. If the Associate Editor feels, having considered the second reviews, that the authors have not responded adequately to the original reviews of the referees, then the paper will be rejected. Thus, it is essential that all comments are addressed properly by authors. A third referee may be approached if the Associate Editor feels this is appropriate. The Editor ultimately reserves the right to reject a paper on grounds of quality or lack of co-operation from authors.

A paper may also be rejected immediately without review if the subject of a paper is deemed
outside the remit of The Aeronautical Journal, there is an obvious lack of novelty or the quality of English grammar and spelling is below an acceptable level.

Once a paper is accepted, the authors will be invited to upload the final files (the approved version of the text and individual files for any accompanying figures and tables) on to Editorial Manager. 

Appeals Process

Appeals of editorial decisions will only be considered if they refer to a specific manuscript and must be based on evidence that either (1) an editor or reviewer made a significant factual error/a major misunderstanding of a manuscript, or (2) the integrity of the editorial decision making process was compromised.  In general, only one appeal per manuscript per decision stage will be considered. 

To make appeal against an editorial decision please send a rebuttal letter to Your letter should include details of your manuscript (title, author details, manuscript number) and explain clearly why you disagree with the editorial decision. If reviewer reports were included with the editorial decision, then these criticisms must be responded to in the rebuttal letter.

The journal Editor will consider your appeal. All appeal requests are handled on a case by case basis and the Editor's decision is final. If successful, an appeal can lead to the article’s re-entering the peer review process. If the appeal is rejected, then the original rejection decision is upheld and no further consideration of that article is possible.

New submissions to the journal take priority over appeals, so it may take a substantial period of time to reach a conclusion about your appeal.