Editorial Policies

Focus and Scope

The International Review of Aerospace Engineering (IREASE) is a peer-reviewed journal that publishes original theoretical and applied papers on all aspects of aerospace research.

The topics to be covered include, but are not limited to:

aerodynamics, fluid dynamics, flight mechanics, structural mechanics, energetics and propulsion, advanced materials, design and manufacture of aircraft, helicopters, launchers and satellites, rotorcraft/UAV/MAV, space vehicles and satellites engineering, systems and test procedures, robotics and intelligent systems, electrical machines, power electronics and electrical systems for aerospace applications, air transportation, navigation, guidance and control, avionics and systems, flight simulation, general aviation, human powered flight, light aviation, management studies, safety, aerospace communications, environmental issues in aerospace, teaching and continuous education, new and important applications and trends.

The Editorial policy is to maintain a reasonable balance between papers regarding different research areas so that the Journal will be useful to all interested scientific groups.

IREASE also publishes letters to the Editor and research notes which discuss new research, or research in progress in any of the above thematic areas.

Section Policies

Articles

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

Peer Review Process

After submitting a paper, it will be peer-reviewed.
All our journals are peer-reviewed. Reviewers are appointed by the journal Editor.

Peer review has two key functions:
- To act as a filter and determine the validity, significance and originality of the work to ensure only good research is published.
- To improve the quality of research submitted for publication by giving reviewers the opportunity to suggest improvements.

The review procedure

Each submitted paper is subjected to the following review procedure:
- Preliminarly, the Plagiarism Prevention Office (plagiarismprev@praiseworthyprize.org) checks each submission through the Ithenticate’s CrossCheck software, in order to detect instances of overlapping and similar text in submitted manuscripts (click here to find out more about CrossCheck for Researchers), comunicating the results of the test to the Editor-in-Chief of the journal only in the case of abnormal percentage of similarity;
- the Editor-in-Chief, if not in conflict of interest, decides for general publication suitability;
- in case of conflict of interest, the Editorial Office invites an "Helper Editor" among the members of the Editorial Board to manage the process for the paper;
- the Editor-in-Chief (or the Helper Editor) assigns submission to a Section Editor (or to himself) among the members of the Editorial Board to see through the editorial process;
- the Section Editor invites 3 high profile experts as Reviewers to perform an independent review of the article and to collect at least two review reports per manuscript;
- the Journal adopts a single-blind peer review: the Reviewers are aware of the identity of the Authors, but the Authors are unaware of the identity of the Reviewers;
- taking care of the recommendations of the Reviewers, the Section Editor decides whether the particular article may be accepted as it is, or it may be revised or rejected;
- the Section Editor contacts the Corresponding Author by email with the editorial decision, Editor comments and Reviewer comments. Authors will be requested to revise their manuscript according to the Reviewers' suggestions, comments and criticisms;
- the revised manuscript must be returned within one month and the review process begins again.

Peer review process flowchart

Editor's Role
The Editor oversees the editorial process, beginning with the assignment of the Section Editor to a submission. The Editor often plays the role of Section Editor in seeing accepted submissions through the Editing stage of the editorial process.

Section Editor's Role
Section Editors usually manage the Review of submissions and the editing of those that are accepted. A Section Editor initially assigned to a submission by an Editor may be asked only to see it through the Review stage, after which, if the submission is accepted, the Editor takes over (in the role of Section Editor). Editors send requests to Section Editors to see a submission through the editorial process.

Reviewer's Role
The Reviewer is invited by email to review a submission, which includes its title and abstract, as well as the journal's URL and a username and password for the Reviewer to use to enter the journal. What is described here is the principal method for reviewing (and ensuring complete records of the process), which involves the Reviewer conducting the Review on the journal's web site.
Author's Role
The Author (corresponding author) of a submission is able to log into the journal's web site to track the progress of the submission and participate in the editorial process. If there is more than one Author, the Author submitting the item is asked to identify the principal contact (corresponding author) who becomes the one with whom all editorial correspondence is conducted and who accesses the journal web site.

Ethical Guidelines

Publication Frequency

The Journal is published bimonthly, appearing on the last day of February, April, June, August, October, December.

Journal's Consent Policy

Generic users, readers and authors who register themselves for a private access to the journal website, give implicitly their consent for Praise Worthy Prize to process their personal data in compliance with the Privacy Policy they had sight of.

Reviewers Suggestion

In the submission process, the submitter is requested for kindly suggest three potential reviewers with the appropriate acknowledged expertise to review the manuscript. These reviewers will not be automatically approved by the Managing Editor.
At Step 1 of the submission procedure please provide detailed contact information (address, homepage, phone, verified institutional e-mail address). The proposed reviewers should neither be current collaborators of the co-authors nor have published with any of the co-authors of the manuscript within the last five years, according to the Ethical requirement of the review process. They should be from different institutions of the authors. The submitter may also identify appropriate members of the Editorial Board of this journal or others Praise Worthy Prize's journals as potential reviewers. The submitter may also suggest reviewers from the authors that you frequently cite in your paper.

Username
Password
Remember me