III. JOURNALS
III.A. Scopes and Scope Revisions
The scopes of all AIAA journals must be approved by the Publications Committee. Scopes may be updated from
time to time, and this process usually is initiated by the Editors-in-Chief, although they do not have to be the
source of suggested changes. The following sequence illustrates the normal scope revision process:
1.
An Editor-in-Chief brings a suggested change to a meeting of Journal Editors.
2.
The Editors discuss the change in relation to the scopes of all of the Institute journals. If
necessary, they may recommend changes to one or more other journal scopes to complement the scope change
of the first journal.
3.
The Chair of the Journal Editors-in-Chief Subcommittee presents the suggested revision(s) to the
full Publications Committee.
4.
The Publications Committee discusses the merits of the revision(s) and formally approves or
disapproves them. [Note: The Editors-in-Chief are ex officio members of the Publications Committee and do not
participate in the actual balloting.]
5.
The revised scope(s) are published in the next available journal issue(s). The Editor-in-Chief
may, if desired, write an editorial calling attention to and giving the reason for the scope revision.
The current* official journal scopes are given in the Appendix. Short versions, approved by the Editors-in-Chief
for use in promotional materials, are also given.
* As of May 1998.
Appendix: Journal Scopes
AIAA Journal (Editor-in-Chief: Dr. Peretz Friedmann, 3001 FXB Building 1320 Beal Avenue, Ann Arbor, MI 48109;
peretzf@umich.edu )
This Journal is devoted to the advancement of the science and technology of astronautics and aeronautics
through the dissemination of original archival research papers disclosing new theoretical developments and/or
experimental results. The topics include aeroacoustics, aerodynamics, combustion, fundamentals of propulsion,
fluid mechanics and reacting flows, fundamental aspects of the aerospace environment, hydrodynamics, lasers
and associated phenomena, plasmas, research instrumentation and facilities, structural mechanics and
materials, optimization, and thermomechanics and thermochemistry. Papers also are sought which review in an
intensive manner the results of recent research developments on any of the topics listed above.
Journal of Aerospace Computing, Information, and Communication (Editor-in-Chief: Dr. Michael G. Hinchey,
LERO, LRG-003, International Science Centre, Limerick, Ireland UK; mike.hinchey@lero.ie).
This Journal is devoted to the applied science and engineering of aerospace computing, information, and
communication. Original archival research papers are sought which include significant scientific and technical
knowledge and concepts. The Journal publishes qualified papers in areas such as information technology,
information assurance, data mining, real-time systems, computational techniques, embedded systems,
communication systems, networking, software engineering, software reliability, systems engineering, systems of
systems, signal processing, data fusion, computer architecture, high-performance computing systems and
software, knowledge management, expert systems, sensor systems, robotics, intelligent and autonomous
systems, and human–computer interfaces. Articles are sought which demonstrate the application of recent
research in computing, information, and communications technology to a wide range of practical aerospace
problems in the analysis and design of vehicles, onboard avionics, ground-based processing and control systems,
flight simulation, and air transportation systems.
Journal of Aircraft (Editor-in-Chief: Dr. Thomas M. Weeks, 3157 Claydor Drive, Beavercreek, Ohio 45431-3307)
This Journal is devoted to the advancement of the applied science and technology of airborne flight through the
dissemination of original archival papers describing significant advances in aircraft, the operation of aircraft, and
applications of aircraft technology to other fields. The Journal publishes qualified papers on aircraft systems, air
transportation, air traffic management, and multidisciplinary design optimization of aircraft, flight mechanics,
flight and ground testing, applied computational fluid dynamics, flight safety, weather and noise hazards, human
factors, airport design, airline operations, application of computers to aircraft including artificial
intelligence/expert systems, production methods, engineering economic analyses, affordability, reliability,
maintainability, and logistics support, integration of propulsion and control systems into aircraft design and
operations, aircraft aerodynamics (including unsteady aerodynamics), structural design/dynamics, and
aeroacoustics. It includes international papers on general aviation, military and civilian aircraft, STOL and
V/STOL, subsonic, supersonic, transonic, and hypersonic aircraft. Papers are sought which comprehensively
survey results of recent technical work with emphasis on aircraft technology application.
Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics (Editor-in-Chief: Dr. George T. Schmidt, Mail Stop 84, Charles Stark
Draper Laboratory, Inc., 555 Technology Square, Cambridge, MA 02139-3563)
This Journal is devoted to the advancement of the science and technology of guidance, control, and dynamics
through the dissemination of original archival papers disclosing significant technical knowledge, exploratory
developments, design criteria, and applications in aeronautics, astronautics, celestial mechanics, and related
fields. The Journal publishes qualified papers on dynamics, stability, guidance, control, navigation, optimization,
electronics, avionics, and information processing related to aeronautical and astronautical and marine systems.
Papers are sought which demonstrate the application of recent research to practical engineering problems.
Papers that describe aspects of the dynamics and control of significant recent developments, such as a new or
different aircraft or spacecraft, also are desired.
Journal of Propulsion and Power (Editor-in-Chief: Dr. Douglas Talley, U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory,10 E.
Saturn Drive, Edwards Air Force Base, CA 93524; douglas.talley@edwards.af.mil)
This Journal is devoted to the advancement of the science and technology of aerospace propulsion and power
through the dissemination of original archival papers contributing to advancements in airbreathing, electric, and
advanced propulsion; solid and liquid rockets; fuels and propellants; power generation and conversion for
aerospace vehicles; and the application of aerospace science and technology to terrestrial energy devices and
systems. It is intended to provide readers of the Journal, with primary interests in propulsion and power, access
to papers spanning the range from research through development to applications. Papers in these disciplines
and the sciences of combustion, fluid mechanics, and solid mechanics as directly related to propulsion and
power are solicited.
Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets (Editor-in-Chief: Mr. E. Vincent Zoby, Mail Stop 408A, NASA Langley Research
Center, Hampton, VA 23681-0001)
This Journal is devoted to reporting advancements in the science and technology associated with spacecraft and
tactical and strategic missile systems, including subsystems, applications, missions, environmental interactions,
and space sciences. The Journal publishes original archival papers disclosing significant developments in
spacecraft and missile configurations, re-entry devices, transatmospheric vehicles, systems and subsystem
design and application, mission design and analysis, applied and computational fluid dynamics, applied
aerothermodynamics, development of materials and structures for spacecraft and missile applications, space
instrumentation, developments in space sciences, space processing and manufacturing, space operations,
interactions with spacecraft and sensors, design of sensors and experiments for space, and applications of space
technologies to other fields. The context of the Journal also includes ground-support systems, manufacturing,
integration and testing, launch control, recovery and repair, space communications, scientific data processing,
and human and environmental factors in spacecraft and mission design. Papers also are sought which describe
the effects of propulsion, guidance and control, thermal management, and structural systems on spacecraft and
missile design and performance.
Journal of Thermophysics and Heat Transfer (Editor-in-Chief: Dr. Alfred L. Crosbie, Thermal Radiative Transfer
Group, 233 Mechanical Engineering Building, 1870 Miner Circle, University of Missouri–Rolla, Rolla, MO 65401)
This Journal is devoted to the advancement of the science and technology of thermophysics and heat transfer
through the dissemination of original research papers disclosing new technical knowledge and exploratory
developments and applications based on new knowledge. The Journal publishes qualified papers that deal with
the properties and mechanisms involved in thermal energy transfer and storage in gases, liquids, and solids or
combinations thereof. These studies include conductive, convective, and radiative modes alone or in
combination and the effects of the environment.
Short Versions of Scopes
AIAA Journal
Discloses new theoretical developments and experimental results on topics such as aerodynamics, the
aerospace environment, lasers and plasmas, fluid mechanics and reacting flows, and structural mechanics and
materials.
Journal of Aerospace Computing, Information, and Communication
Publishes archival papers which demonstrate the application of recent research in computing, information, and
communications technology to a wide range of practical aerospace problems in the analysis and design of
vehicles, onboard avionics, ground-based processing and control systems, flight simulation, and air
transportation systems.
Journal of Aircraft
Publishes archival papers on applied aircraft systems, design, operations, flight mechanics, flight and ground
test, flight safety, computer applications, systems integration, aerodynamics, structures, and structural
dynamics.
Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics
Presents significant technical knowledge on topics such as dynamics, stability, guidance, control, navigation,
optimization, electronics, and information processing, including applications of recent research to practical
engineering problems.
Journal of Propulsion and Power
Contributes to advancements in airbreathing, electric, and advanced propulsion, solid and liquid rockets,
combustion, fuels and propellants, power generation and conversion for aerospace vehicles, and terrestrial
energy devices and systems.
Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets
Covers advancements in spacecraft and tactical and strategic missile systems, including subsystem design and
application, mission design and analysis, developments in space sciences, and applications of space technologies
to other fields.
Journal of Thermophysics and Heat Transfer
Contains research papers that deal with the properties and mechanisms involved in thermal energy transfer and
storage in gases, liquids, and solids, including conductive, convective, and radiative modes alone or in
combination.
III.B. New Editor-in-Chief Searches
The Publications Committee conducted two extensive, formal searches for new journal Editors-in-Chief. The
procedures worked so well that they recommended documenting them for future use.
I.
Search Committee
The first step is the formation of a Search Committee. A chair is appointed by the AIAA Vice President–
Publications. The chair then forms a committee, preferably of six or seven individuals who are knowledgeable in
the technical areas covered by the particular journal (and also knowledgeable in the general publications
process). If possible, the group should include at least one current AIAA Editor-in-Chief, an editor of a
competing journal, and the outgoing AIAA Editor-in-Chief (at least in an advisory capacity).
II. Evaluation Criteria
The chair circulates to the Search Committee an objective list of criteria to be used to evaluate the candidates.
Suggested criteria are as follows:
1.
Has the energy, initiative, management skills, judgment, and dedication to do the work required.
2.
Has sufficient stature in the range of technical fields involved to be recognized and respected.
3.
Has a clear view of the place held by the journal and a vision of what will be needed to maintain
it.
4.
Has the training and experience necessary to take advantage of the information revolution.
5.
Has adequate organizational support for administration and travel.
6.
Has demonstrated outstanding performance as an Editor-in-Chief or an Associate Editor.
If the journal has been reviewed by the Publications Review Subcommittee, a copy of that report may also be
sent to each member of the Search Committee. The chair may call attention to any portion of the review that is
particularly significant or may ask the Committee to ignore any portion that is no longer relevant.
III. Call for Nominations
The chair sends letters to current and past Associate Editors of the journal, as well as to the Publications
Committee, announcing the impending vacancy and requesting their suggestions of qualified candidates.
At the same time, announcements are published in Aerospace America and the technical journals inviting
nominations for the open position. A sample follows:
Important Announcement: New Editor-in-Chief Sought for AIAA’s (Title) Journal
(Name), current Editor-in-Chief of the (Title) Journal, will relinquish his position on (Date). We are seeking
a qualified candidate for this position and invite your nominations.
The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for receiving manuscripts, assigning them to Associate Editors for review
and evaluation, and monitoring the performance of the Associate Editors to assure that the manuscripts
are processed in a fair and timely manner. The Editor-in-Chief works closely with AIAA Headquarters staff
on both general procedures and the scheduling of specific issues. Detailed record keeping and prompt
actions are required. The Editor-in-Chief is expected to provide his or her own clerical support, although
this may be partially offset by a small expense allowance. AIAA provides a computer, together with
appropriate manuscript-tracking software.
Interested candidates are invited to send full résumés, including a complete list of published papers, to:
(HQ Staff Person)
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
1801 Alexander Bell Drive, Suite 500
Reston, VA 20191
Fax (703) 264-7551
Two letters of recommendation also are required. The recommendations should be sent by the parties
writing the letters directly to (Staff Person) at the above address or fax number. All materials must be
received at AIAA Headquarters by (Date).
A selection committee will review the applications and will recommend qualified candidates to the AIAA
Vice President–Publications, who in turn will present a recommendation to the AIAA Board of Directors
for approval. All candidates will be notified of the final decision.
IV. Evaluation of Candidates
When the deadline for nominations/applications has past, the AIAA Publications Committee Staff Liaison
prepares a package consisting of résumés and letters of recommendation for each candidate. These packages
are sent to all members of the Search Committee for an initial evaluation. The chair then asks each Committee
member to recommend the top few candidates (three is a reasonable number), including both outstanding
strengths and weaknesses of each person selected. The chair ranks the responses and selects the top 4–6
nominees as finalists. The chair notifies all candidates of their status at this point. The finalists are then asked
to provide detailed answers to a list of relevant questions, such as the following:
1.
Why are you interested in being Editor-in-Chief of (Title) Journal?
2.
What is your previous editorial experience?
3.
How will you interact with the relevant AIAA Technical Committees?
4.
What will you do to reverse trends of declining submittals and subscribers?
5.
This position will require approximately two days per week to perform. Are you able to make
this time commitment?
6.
AIAA can provide up to approximately (dollar amount) per year in total office expense
reimbursement, including clerical support. Can you accomplish the work within this budget?
7.
AIAA cannot pay travel expenses. You will need to meet with your editorial team, the
Publications Committee, and others each year. Will your employer provide the necessary travel
support?
8.
The future success of the (Title) Journal and the effectiveness of your work are strongly linked to
your ability to capitalize on advances in information technology. What related capabilities and
experiences do you have in this field?
9.
Do you have Internet access? Do you have sufficient computer skills to manage, maintain, and
evolve the Filemaker Pro–based record-keeping system that is used to track manuscripts?
10.
Please comment on any particular issue(s) facing the journal that you would make a priority.
How would you address them?
V. Final Selection and Approval
The chair of the Search Committee circulates the responses of the finalists to all Committee members and asks
them to rank-order the remaining candidates, giving detailed reasons for their top two selections.
The chair, in consultation with the Vice President–Publications, makes a final selection based upon the
Committee recommendations. The full Publications Committee is then asked to approve the nomination.
(Depending upon the timing, this step may be taken by mail, fax, or e-mail ballot.)
The Vice President–Publications asks the AIAA Board of Directors for final approval of the new Editor-in-Chief
(required by the Bylaws to the AIAA Constitution).
The chair of the Search Committee and the Vice President–Publications jointly notify all finalists of the outcome.
III.C. Editor-in-Chief and Associate Editor
Appointments and Reappointments
I.
Editors-in-Chief
Appointments of Editors-in-Chief are initiated by the Vice President–Publications. Ideally, if there is time, a
formal editor search is conducted (see section III.B). In any case, the Vice President usually seeks the approval,
by formal vote, of the full Publications Committee (although that step is not required). The nomination of a new
Editor-in-Chief must be ratified by the AIAA Board of Directors.
Reappointments require only the approval of the Vice President–Publications.
All appointments are for three-year terms, as set forth in the Bylaws to the AIAA Constitution. These terms are
renewable indefinitely. Editors-in-Chief must be members of the Institute.
When appointments/reappointments have been approved, the AIAA Headquarters staff sends out formal
letters, signed by the AIAA President. This is a sample:
Dear (Name):
(Name), AIAA Vice President–Publications and Chairman of the AIAA Publications Committee, has
recommended that you be appointed Editor-in-Chief of (Title) Journal. It is indeed a pleasure for me to
formalize that appointment, by means of this letter, for a three-year term effective (date).
AIAA is fortunate in having a proud publication history, and in this history its many dedicated Editors have
played a most important role. As an Editor-in-Chief, charged with seeing that only the very best material
is published in (Title) Journal, you will have a unique opportunity to serve your fellow engineers and
scientists in the field of aerospace.
I am sure that you will find the position of Editor-in-Chief to be a challenging and stimulating one. I am
deeply appreciative of your interest in AIAA and its publications. My best wishes to you in this new role.
Sincerely yours,
(Name)
AIAA President
To simplify the record-keeping process, every effort is made to begin all editorial terms on January 1 and end
them on December 31. If a term must begin on some interim date, the initial appointment will be somewhat
less than three full years so that it can still end on December 31 and then will be in cycle with other volunteer
appointments.
All new Editors-in-Chief are sent guidelines, forms, and procedural information by the AIAA Headquarters staff.
II.
Associate Editors
Appointments of Associate Editors are usually initiated by the Editor-in-Chief. Honoraria for a specific number of
Associate Editors per journal are budgeted each year, and Editors-in-Chief are expected to stay within the
budgeted number unless they have urgent reasons to appoint additional people. Associate Editor appointments
require only the approval of the Vice President–Publications. They are not brought to the full Publications
Committee for discussion.
Reappointments also require the approval of the Vice President–Publications.
As with Editors-in-Chief, all appointments are for three-year terms, as set forth in the Bylaws to the AIAA
Constitution. These terms are renewable indefinitely. Associate Editors must be members of the Institute.
The AIAA Headquarters staff sends out formal letters, signed by the AIAA President. This is a sample:
Dear (Name):
(Name), AIAA Vice President–Publications, has approved the recommendation of (Name), Editor-in-Chief
of (Title) Journal, that you be appointed an Associate Editor of that journal. It is indeed a pleasure for me
to formalize the appointment by means of this letter for a three-year term effective (date). It is AIAA
publications policy that your term of service be at the pleasure of the Editor-in-Chief.
As I am sure you know, AIAA is fortunate in having a proud publication history, and in this history its many
dedicated Editors have played a most important role. As an Associate Editor, charged with seeing that
only the very best material is published in the (Title) Journal, you will have a unique opportunity to serve
your fellow engineers and scientists in the field of aerospace.
Sincerely yours,
(Name)
AIAA President
As with Editors-in-Chief, every effort is made to begin all editorial terms on January 1 and end them on
December 31. If a term must begin on some interim date, the initial appointment will be somewhat less than
three full years so that it can still end on December 31 and then will be in cycle with other volunteer
appointments.
All new Associate Editors are sent guidelines, forms, and procedural information by the AIAA Headquarters staff.
III.D. Editor Compensation and Recognition
I.
Honoraria
As provided in the Bylaws to the AIAA Constitution, Editors-in-Chief and Associate Editors may receive
honoraria. The monthly amounts are as follows*:
Editor-in-Chief, AIAA Journal
$550 ($650 beginning FY11)
Editors-in-Chief, all other journals $450 ($485 beginning FY11)
Associate Editors
$165 ($185 beginning FY11)
The payment for AIAA Journal is higher than the others because it is a monthly journal and has a larger backlog
of manuscripts.
To streamline the accounting process, honoraria checks are issued bimonthly in double the amounts given
above. Recipients must provide their social security numbers, and they are issued IRS 1099 forms at the end of
each calendar year.
II.
Editor-in-Chief and Associate Editor Expenses
A total of $25,000 is budgeted each year* to reimburse Editors-in-Chief for office supplies and necessary clerical
assistance. The amount is allocated to each journal based on the total budgeted pages (e.g., if 35% of all journal
pages are assigned to AIAA Journal, then that Editor-in-Chief is entitled to a maximum of 35% of the $25,000
reimbursement amount). In accordance with AIAA Board of Directors policy, there is no reimbursement of
travel expenses.
* As of May 1998.
Both Editors-in-Chief and Associate Editors may be reimbursed for postage expenses, with no dollar limit to the
reimbursement.
Editors must submit receipts for all expenses for which reimbursement is requested. Expense requests should
be submitted (preferably) monthly, or at least quarterly. Under no circumstances will a reimbursement request
be considered if it is submitted more than six months after the date the expense was incurred.
III.
Plaques
When an Editor-in-Chief or Associate Editor retires, he/she is presented with a plaque commemorating his/her
service to the Institute, provided that he/she has served at least one full three-year term and is retiring in good
standing. (Similar plaques are presented to the authors of survey papers.)
III.E. AIAA Associate Editors’ Handbook
The main text of this information booklet, which is provided to all Editors-in-Chief and Associate Editors, is
reproduced here (without the numerous attachments and form letters):
AIAA Associate Editors’ Handbook: Information and Procedures
General
AIAA extends a warm welcome to you as a journal Associate Editor. You have been selected on the basis
of your expertise in your particular field and will be relied upon heavily for your judgment in selecting
worthwhile papers for the journal. Your responsibilities as an Associate Editor occasionally will make
heavy demands on your time, but hopefully the information presented here will clarify those
responsibilities, as well as those of the Editors-in-Chief, Reviewers, and AIAA Staff. Feel free to consult
your Editor-in-Chief if you have policy questions on topics not covered here.
Much of your work will be accomplished using ScholarOne Manuscripts, AIAA’s new online manuscript
tracking system (ScholarOne Manuscripts will replace AIAA’s old system, WriteTrack, in 2009-2010.)
The Associate Editor ScholarOne Manuscripts User Guide, with detailed instructions, is available at
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/aiaa. All of the instructions and forms cited in this document also are
available at that location. AIAA Staff will be happy to answer any questions you may have on these
policies and procedures.
Responsibilities of Associate Editors
When you undertake the responsibility of being an Associate Editor, you are agreeing to process papers
both competently and promptly. This commitment, although voluntary, is of the highest priority and
must be taken seriously.
You control the technical quality of the journals in your field; please make your decisions with this in
mind. To be useful, and to be fair to authors, the papers must be published as soon as possible.
Therefore, please act promptly on your papers, using the guidelines given in Table 1. Table 2 summarizes
the responsibilities of the Editors-in-Chief, Associate Editors, Reviewers, and AIAA Staff.
Table 1 Timetable for Processing Manuscriptsa,b
Task
Time allowed
Full-Length Papers:
Associate Editor selects reviewers and forwards them manuscripts
3 days
Reviewers submit reports
3 weeks
Associate Editor informs author of evaluation following receipt of review reports
1 week
Author revises manuscript
4 weeks
Associate Editor checks revised manuscript (re-review allowed only in cases of
extreme revision or controversy) and/or evaluates author rebuttal, if applicable
3 days
Notes and Design Forum (DF papers for Journal of Aircraft only):
Associate Editor processes Note (formal review not required)
1 week
aThis timetable is used to determine delinquency (with a short grace period). The reference date is
the date your Editor-in-Chief first assigns you the manuscript.
bSee also the Acceptance Procedures for Archive Journals of AIAA.
Table 2 Division of Responsibilities
Editor-in-Chief (EIC)
Associate Editor (AE)
Reviewer
18
AIAA Journals Staff
) Acknowledges new
submission via
ScholarOne
Manuscripts and
glances through it,
checking general
quality, importance to
technical community,
and compliance with
editorial specifications;
checks manuscript
word count (or may
have AE check count);
if appropriate to scope
of the journal, forwards
to AE for that field,
using ScholarOne
Manuscripts, informing
him or her of any
outstanding issues; if
not appropriate to
scope, informs author
(and may propose
transfer to another
journal if the other EIC
agrees) and withdraws
from consideration;
enters necessary data
on each manuscript
into ScholarOne
Manuscripts
1) Checks manuscript
word count (if not done
by EIC); using
ScholarOne
Manuscripts, forwards
manuscript to 2 or 3
reviewers competent in
field; prods reviewers
when reports are
overdue
2) In cases of policy or
other disagreement
between AE and
reviewers and/or
authors, may be called
upon to arbitrate
dispute
4) Checks revised
manuscript and/or
rebuttal and informs
author if decision is to
decline or (in very
extreme cases) revise
further; if decision is to
accept, notifies both
the author and the
AIAA Staff of
acceptance via
ScholarOne
Manuscripts
3) Makes certain that
all AEs perform their
duties competently and
promptly
4) Makes
recommendations for
new AEs or
reappointment of those
whose terms have
expired
2) Evaluates review
report; sends reviewer
automated “thank you”
e-mail message via
ScholarOne
Manuscripts
1) Checks manuscript
for accuracy, length
(too brief or too long),
and quality
2) Enters review report
into ScholarOne
Manuscripts
3) Forwards review
reports (if appropriate)
and clear revision
instructions to author
via ScholarOne
Manuscripts; prods
author when revised
manuscript is overdue
5) Makes decision on
Readers’ Forum
papers, Notes, Design
Forum papers, and
Comments; notifies
author and AIAA Staff
of decision via
ScholarOne
Manuscripts
1) Confirms
acceptance to author
via ScholarOne
Manuscripts e-mail,
and directs author to
required forms
accessible via
ScholarOne
Manuscripts; forwards
manuscript to
composition vendor;
schedules manuscript
for an upcoming issue
2) Supervises all
phases of actual
production of journal
3) Tracks journal
backlogs
19
The Editors-in-Chief monitor the performance of all Associate Editors. It is essential that you
effectively use ScholarOne Manuscripts to process and track the progress of each manuscript
and that you avoid unreasonable delays. Associate Editors who are frequently slow may be
replaced.
AIAA is aware of the burden of your responsibility and appreciates your willingness to
undertake it. The quality of the journals could not be maintained without your hard work. You
can take justifiable pride in the final result.
Manuscript Evaluation
As an Associate Editor, you have several choices for disposition of a manuscript:
1) Publish without revision.
2) Publish, but with minor revision.
3) Publish, but with major revision.
4) Propose to Editor-in-Chief (EIC) a transfer to one of AIAA’s other journals.
5) Recommend changing the manuscript from a Full-Length Paper to a Technical or
Engineering Note.
6) Decline to publish. (Avoid using the word “rejected.”)
7) Withdraw the manuscript. (This option may be used when an inordinate amount of time
has elapsed in the revision process and attempts to elicit a response from the author
have failed.)
The key question is whether or not the manuscript makes a significant contribution to the
scientific and engineering literature. Is the manuscript worthy of preserving for five years? A
decade? If the manuscript is a trivial extension, is not original work, has been published
elsewhere, has conceptual or analytical flaws, or treats an inconsequential problem, do not
accept it for publication. Some editorial manuscript deficiencies are listed in the “Manuscript
Specifications” subsection, which follows.
If moderate or major revision is required, do not promise or imply that the revision will be
accepted automatically for publication. Word your request for such revisions so that the author
knows that only a revision that covers the points in your evaluation satisfactorily will be
accepted. (See the sample evaluations in Section II.)
Your online evaluation of each paper is submitted to the author via ScholarOne
Manuscripts. It should contain 1) your technical evaluation and instructions to the author,
including all or portions of the reviewers’ comments, as appropriate, and 2) your editorial
guidelines to the author, in the form of the Action Checklist. In your technical evaluation,
specifically state everything you want done. Do not be overly brief. Erring on the side of writing
too much is preferable to skimpy instructions. If some reviewer remarks are more important
than others, or if you need to clarify what you want done with some, number the comments and
say exactly what the author should do with each. If remarks of two reviewers could be
interpreted as conflicting (whether or not they are), include only the remarks you feel are
relevant in your instructions to the author.
On the Action Checklist, you should mark the “Ethical Standards for Publication of
Aeronautics and Astronautics Research,” “Numerical Accuracy and Experimental Uncertainty,”
“Manuscript Style and Format,” and any editorial instructions that may benefit the author; he or
she then will have access to the appropriate information through direct links.
Do not ask the Editor-in-Chief whether a manuscript should be accepted or declined. You
are expected to make the decision yourself because you are likely to comprehend the technical
issues better than the Editor-in-Chief. If there is a problem, e-mail the Editor-in-Chief with your
decision, recommendation, and description of the problem. When a manuscript is declined, the
evaluation must include specific and objective reasons. Be aware that occasionally an author
might submit a paper containing classified material; question the author if there is any hint that
a paper might be classified.
Any paper that has been published elsewhere cannot be published again in an AIAA journal.
(This does not apply to AIAA conference papers, which may be reviewed and revised following
our normal procedures.) Prior publication usually applies to any paper that has been critically
reviewed, is copyrighted by some entity, appears in a copyrighted volume, or is widely
distributed or widely available (such as individually for sale over the Internet). Papers that fall
into these categories usually need to be revised substantially in order to be considered “original
submissions.” Some authors hope that, by submitting such papers for peer review, the resulting
final paper will qualify as original material because of the review and revision process. This is
fallacious thinking. It is not the job of the editors or reviewers to help create an original paper;
that is the author’s responsibility. There are many borderline cases, however, and in these you
must use your own judgment. You may, if you suspect that the work is not original, ask the
author for a copy of the previous paper and request him or her to identify changes. If you have
any doubts, consult your Editor-in-Chief.
Because the changes that you or the reviewers have requested may be difficult to find in the
revision, you can check the last box on the Action Checklist, which asks the author to explain in
the re-submittal, point by point, where he or she has accounted for each of your requests, or
the reasons for not doing so. This potentially can save you much effort when you are evaluating
the revised manuscript. Check the revision carefully. Only in very exceptional cases should the
manuscript be sent for re-review or re-revision.
Before you accept a manuscript, PLEASE make sure that all requested revisions have been
completed by the author. The accepted PDF in ScholarOne Manuscripts is used by Beacon (our
composition vendor) as the authoritative version of the manuscript during the copyediting
and production process. If the source file uploaded by the author contains revisions made
after acceptance, it creates confusion and extra work for the vendor.
Your Editor-in-Chief usually will expect you to handle Technical Comments and Replies
without formal review. Remember to process any paper commenting on another paper as a
Comment, not a Note. All Comments must be sent to the original author so that he or she can
prepare a Reply if desired. Notify the AIAA Staff if you are unable to obtain complete contact
information for the original author from ScholarOne Manuscripts.
When you determine the final disposition of a manuscript (accept or decline), notify both
the author and the AIAA Staff of your decision, using ScholarOne Manuscripts.
The AIAA Staff will handle publication upon receipt of your notification. The staff will
communicate with the author regarding materials required for publication (source files,
copyright and subject index forms) publication charges, reprint orders, will send the paper for
copyediting and composition, and will inform the author when the article is scheduled for an
upcoming journal issue.
Manuscript Specifications
In order to evaluate each manuscript thoroughly, Associate Editors should be familiar with
the requirements outlined in the Manuscript Style and Format instructions. Common
deficiencies or problems with manuscripts are found in the following areas:
1) Title: Titles of papers should be no more than 12 words and should contain no acronyms
or abbreviations. They are often too long; sometimes they do not reflect the contents of the
paper. If a title is too long, try to suggest a shortened version.
2) Authors: To protect the integrity of authorship, only persons who have significantly
contributed to the research and paper presentation should be listed as authors. Others may be
thanked in the Acknowledgments section. The listing of more than six authors must be approved
by the Associate Editor or Editor-in-Chief. Before you accept a paper, please ensure that you
have approved the listing of more than six authors, if applicable.
3) Abstract: Each Full-Length Paper must have a one-paragraph abstract (summary) of not
less than 100 or more than 200 words. History of Key Technologies papers and special lectures
also include abstracts. (Survey Papers, however, include biographies of the authors instead of
abstracts.) The abstract must state clearly the subject of the paper and the objectives of the
investigation. The most important newly observed facts and conclusions should be stated. It
should be a summary (not an introduction!), complete in itself (no mention of references,
figures, etc.), and it should contain no acronyms or abbreviations. The abstract should be
written using third person instead of first person (i.e., “The experiments were performed”
versus “We performed the experiments…”).A good abstract should convey to the reader the
essential information even if he or she does not have access to the full paper or does not have
time to read it. A so-called abstract that has numerous sentences such as “The results are
discussed in the paper,” or “Various test data are given,” or “Conclusions are presented” is
nothing but a promissory note. It is not a “stand-alone” abstract. Do not accept an abstract that
fails this test. When requesting revisions from an author whose abstract is deficient, you may
use the Action Checklist to link him or her to the Preparation of an Abstract instructions.
4) Nomenclature: A Nomenclature section is required for papers containing more than a
few symbols; nomenclature definitions then should not be repeated in the text. More complete
guidelines are given in the Manuscript Style and Format instructions.
5) Introduction: The introduction must indicate the motive for the topic and put it into
perspective with previously published, publicly available work. The archival contribution of the
paper must be made clear in the context of this previous work. If a paper is analytically oriented,
the introduction also should contain an explanation of how, where, and why the method would
be used in an actual engineering situation.
6) Length Specifications: Papers frequently are too long. Although there is no rigid length
limitation for Full-Length Papers, they must be as brief and concise as proper presentation of
the ideas will allow. Authors usually enter the initial word count of papers as they are submitted
via ScholarOne Manuscripts (generally by means of the automatic word-count function of the
software program used to prepare the manuscript). Approximate normal length limits (including
equations) are as follows:
a) Full-Length Paper: 10,000–12,000 words
b) Technical/Engineering Note: 2500 words
c) Technical Comment: 1200 words
d) Survey Paper: 18,000–20,000 words
e) History of Key Technologies or Special Lecture: to be determined by the EIC
f) Design Forum Papers: 10,000-12,000 words
A normal-sized drawing, photograph, or table counts as 200 words. Complicated flow charts
or diagrams may be estimated at 300–400 words, as should multipart figures and oversized
tables. These numbers should be added to the author’s original word count to estimate the total
paper length.
If the manuscript is overly long but otherwise has technical merit, ask for a revised
manuscript of proper length. Be sure that an approximate reduction percentage is noted in the
ScholarOne Manuscripts e-mail message that is forwarded to the reviewers. An extremely long
paper may be returned to the author for shortening prior to review.
A paper with an acceptable word count may be too long! If the paper is poorly organized,
uses too much space in roundabout explanations, or focuses on extraneous material, it is too
long. When asking for reductions, give guidelines to authors in the ScholarOne Manuscripts email message as to what material you believe can be deleted. Figures take up a great deal of
space. Be sure all figures are necessary. (Can a figure be replaced by a paragraph of text?)
Keep in mind that the revised manuscript may vary in length from the original, and
particular attention should be paid to the length of the accepted version. Accepted manuscripts
should not significantly exceed the stated guidelines without approval from your Editor-in-Chief.
On rare occasions, an unusually long manuscript may be justified. If you recommend
acceptance of such a manuscript, contact your Editor-in-Chief for his or her approval. When the
paper is accepted, be sure to indicate to AIAA Staff, in the Comments field of ScholarOne
Manuscripts, that the over-length paper has been approved.
7) General Content Specifications: The Editor-in-Chief frequently suggests changes in his
or her initial comments to the Associate Editor. Be sure to incorporate his or her suggestions in
your evaluation to the author.
The English in some papers is unacceptable. The author should be instructed to improve it in
the revision. If there is an identifiable problem, such as incorrect use of articles or tenses,
specifically inform the author. If English is not the author’s primary language, ask him or her to
have the paper edited by a colleague who is a native English speaker. Be as polite and gentle as
possible, while still making your point, so that you do not offend the author. You may also wish
to request that a member of the International Advisory Board for your journal (if applicable)
review the paper for proper use of English; consult your Editor-in-Chief regarding this option.
Organizational names do not belong in the text of an archival paper. They should be deleted
(with a few exceptions, such as when established, major research facilities are included).
Commercial overtones also must be deleted, as well as any programmatic material such as who
sponsored whom for what work. This information may be placed in the Acknowledgments.
In the same spirit, be cautious about papers describing computer programs that are
proprietary and for which the key references are carefully controlled by the author’s employer.
If the computer program must be purchased to be used, such papers can amount to thinly
disguised sales brochures.
8) Acknowledgments: Financial support (through a grant or contract) and/or sponsor
information may be acknowledged in this section. Those who contributed to the paper or to the
research documented, but who were not actually authors, also may be thanked. Papers
presented at non-AIAA meetings may be mentioned here (not in the paper’s first footnote).
Full names should be used, if possible, and titles such as “Dr.” or “Professor” should not be
used. It is not appropriate to thank clerical help for assistance. Personal (as opposed to
professional) acknowledgments are never allowed.
9) References: References are frequently incomplete. They should be prepared in
accordance with the Reference Format instructions; please familiarize yourself with this
instruction sheet. Although the journals accept references to company reports, references to
widely available publications in archival journals are preferred. Classified or export-restricted
references, personal/private communications, personal Web sites, and Web sites where there is
no commitment to archiving are not to be used as references. They may be cited in the text or in
footnotes and the date of citation must be included.
Some authors cite only their own work; this frequently indicates lack of interest and lack of
knowledge about other work. Other authors fail to cite papers extending back even five years.
Occasionally authors reinvent a theory that can be found in early classics such as Durand’s
Aerodynamic Theory. If only last year’s papers are cited, be suspicious. References reflect the
thoroughness of manuscript preparation.
10) Units of Measure: Metric (or dual) units are preferred for all journals and are
mandatory for AIAA Journal and Journal of Thermophysics and Heat Transfer. Units should be
consistent; many manuscripts switch from English to metric and back. Authors should use one
system (or dual dimensions) consistently.
11) Mathematics: Consult the Mathematics section of the Manuscript Style and Format
instructions. Pay particular attention to guidelines for the use of boldface, italic, and Roman
type in mathematics. Also note that layers of subscripts and superscripts are time-consuming to
compose and should be simplified if possible.
12) Illustrations: Authors can submit artwork in any format. Lettering on illustrations must
be at least 1/16 in. high (0.16 cm) when reduced to column width (3.25 in. or 8.25 cm). Be
inflexible; insist on adequate lettering, including the subscripts and superscripts. Discourage the
use of very small and very large type in the same illustration, as it is impossible to reduce these
figures uniformly and still maintain readability. Figures also should be designed to minimize
wasted space. (See sample figures with good and poor lettering at the end of this document.)
Flow charts of computer programs are rarely archival material, since it is the method, not
the particular computer program mechanization, that usually makes publishable material.
Accordingly, consider each flow chart a prime candidate for deletion.
Photographs of equipment and test setups are usually of limited use and are seldom
archival. Consider them as prime candidates for deletion. Diagrams usually are more readable in
the journal. If a diagram can convey the information equally well or better than a photograph,
ask the author to provide one.
Color artwork should be evaluated to determine whether the color is essential to the
interpretation of the data. Authors are informed when they submit their manuscripts that they
will be responsible for covering all expenses associated with printing in color. When a paper
with color figures is accepted, then an estimate of the color printing costs will be sent to the
author when acceptance is confirmed by AIAA Staff.
Reviewers
You may select either two or three reviewers for Full-Length Papers. Consult your Editor-inChief to determine the number he or she prefers you to use. Generally, if you are familiar with
the subject of a Full-Length Paper, send it to two reviewers; if you are less familiar, select three.
Each of the reviewers you choose will have access to the manuscript and the reviewer score
sheet within ScholarOne Manuscripts. Technical and Engineering Notes often are reviewed only
by the Associate Editor, as they are intended for prompt publication.
Ask potential reviewers to confirm their availability before you assign manuscripts to them;
telephone calls are strongly recommended. Although this may seem troublesome, in the long
run it will save you countless hours spent in tracking down reviewers from whom you did not
receive prior agreement. All reviewers should be instructed to download both “Ethical Standards
for Publication of Aeronautics and Astronautics Research” and “Numerical Accuracy and
Experimental Uncertainty.” Allow the reviewers three weeks to review the manuscript. Tardy
reviewers should be prodded promptly. If four weeks have elapsed and you have only one
review, proceed on the basis of the one review. This assumes that the one is competently done.
(If it is not, you will have to select new reviewers.) Occasionally reviewers simply check off the
boxes on the reviewer score sheet; merely checking boxes yields a worthless review.
Keep in mind, however, that you are the final judge of each paper. You may overrule the
reviewers, if you wish, or choose not to send the author a particular review report. If you are in
doubt about a manuscript even after thorough review, you probably should decide in favor of
the author. Remember that the author bears responsibility for what he or she publishes long
after the reviewers have forgotten about it.
There are several techniques for finding reviewers:
1) To search for reviewers in S1, AEs can use the Quick Search to find a reviewer by name or
the Advanced Search to look up anyone who has reviewer privileges, has few papers assigned,
and/or has relevant subject interests. He or she can also do a Related Papers Lookup to find
reviewers and authors of papers with a similar subject matter. All of these options will appear
on the select/invite/assign reviewers tab in a manuscript’s details.
2) Consult the list of preferred/non-preferred reviewers submitted to ScholarOne
Manuscripts by most authors when their papers are submitted. Associate Editors can view
preferred reviewers for a manuscript under “Author-Supplied Data” in the Manuscript
Information section of each manuscript’s record in ScholarOne. Be cautious in the use of these
reviewers, since the preferred reviewers are likely to be friends of the author. Use these names
for not more than one out of three reviews. The names can be more useful for other papers in
that particular field rather than for the paper by the author who submitted the names.
3) Look at the reference list; people who are cited in the paper are likely reviewers.
4) Thumb through past issues of journals or the year-end journal index to find individuals
who have published on the same topic.
5) Ask your colleagues to recommend reviewers.
6) Consult your current list of AIAA Technical Committee members in the Technical
Activities Information Manual, which is sent to all Editors-in-Chief and Associate Editors by the
AIAA Staff. E-mail or telephone appropriate Technical Committee members, and ask them to
nominate reviewers and to identify specific interests.
Do not select reviewers from the author’s local organization. Reviewers need not be
members of AIAA. In selecting reviewers, avoid using the world’s foremost expert; he or she is
frequently too busy. You may wish to use a disciple.
Input any new reviewers you have identified into ScholarOne Manuscripts database.
Record Keeping
ScholarOne Manuscripts will keep track of the status of manuscripts as actions are taken. In
this way, both you and your Editor-in-Chief are aware of the disposition of manuscripts in your
care at all times. You must keep your records current by taking appropriate actions punctually.
Because you are taking on an obligation to authors to handle their manuscripts promptly, your
Editor-in-Chief will contact you to take corrective action if your assigned manuscripts are not
progressing through the system.
Your Editor-in-Chief will enter key comments or information about the paper into the
paper’s Manuscript Information, under “Notes,” and ScholarOne Manuscripts will record the
date the paper is assigned to you. This date will be the key date for monitoring the progress of
the paper. Table 1 gives the times allotted to each step of the process. A small margin is added
to each stage to allow for unforeseen circumstances. If this time elapses without data entries
showing that the appropriate action has been taken, you are considered overdue on that action.
For instance, if you have not forwarded a paper for review within three days (plus margin) of
when your Editor-in-Chief assigns the manuscript to you, that action will be declared overdue by
ScholarOne Manuscripts.
Three important types of data will be captured by ScholarOne Manuscripts:
1) Dates on which you took actions, such as assigning manuscripts to reviewers, and on
which you made decisions.
2) Decisions such as Accept, Revise, etc.
3) Reviewer names, to include first name (or initials) and last name, and reviewer
performance ratings. As you build your database of reviewers, be sure to use the correct spelling
for reviewer names and to include usernames, passwords, and professional interest codes for all
reviewers. The system will keep track of reviewers and their ratings so that they can be used
again (by you and other Associate Editors) and so that an accurate, annual reviewer list can be
prepared for publication.
II. Correspondence and Instruction Documents
ScholarOne Manuscripts features automated e-mails (which you can edit) and
downloadable instructions to facilitate your work. The e-mails should be self-explanatory as you
navigate through the various processes involved in 1) tracking manuscripts, and 2) moving them,
step by step, from submittal through your final decision to accept or decline.
All instruction documents are accessible on ScholarOne Manuscripts
(http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/aiaa).
Those documents contain detailed (and in some cases mandatory) information—primarily for
authors but also, in particular instances, for reviewers. They are described here:
1) Ethical Standards for Publication of Aeronautics and Astronautics Research
This is, arguably, AIAA’s most important publications-related document. It is a definitive
publication ethics guideline for editors, authors, and reviewers. You should refer all of your
authors and reviewers to it as “required reading.”
2) Editorial Policy Statement on Numerical and Experimental Accuracy
This policy statement clarifies AIAA’s definition of acceptable standards for presentation of
numerical and experimental results. It should be required reading for all of your authors and
reviewers.
3) Journal Scopes
This gives the complete scopes of all AIAA journals. It is useful to authors who need some
guidance as to which journal would be most appropriate for their papers.
4) Acceptance Procedure for Archive Journals of AIAA
This explains in detail the steps of manuscript processing, including peer review, revision,
due consideration of author rebuttals, and the final editorial decision to accept or decline. It is
informally referred to as the Author’s Bill of Rights. It also is very useful for Associate Editors.
5) Paper Type Definitions
These are descriptions and length requirements for each type of paper published in AIAA
technical journals. It is for the information of authors.
6) Information for Contributors to Journals of the AIAA
This guides authors through the basic requirements for their original submissions, including
primary paper types, titles, mathematics, references, illustrations, tables, and symbols and units.
It also is published on the inside back covers of all print journals.
7) Manuscript Style and Format
The emphasis of this document is on the detailed formatting of papers. All of the
information is not necessary for original submissions. You definitely should refer authors to this
document when you request their revised manuscripts.
8) Submission of AIAA Conference Papers to Journals
This document is directed specifically to authors of AIAA conference papers. It includes basic
submission instructions and a description of archival criteria.
9) Preparation of an Abstract
This outlines abstract content and length specifications. Refer authors to these instructions if
their abstracts are deficient.
10) Preparation of a Biography
Biographies are required (in lieu of abstracts) for all Survey Papers and are optional for FullLength Papers in the Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics (if there are three or fewer
authors). Refer authors to these instructions if needed.
11) Reference Format
This document gives detailed instructions for the formatting of all types of references,
including citations of electronic media. Refer all authors to these instructions when you request
their revised manuscripts.
12) Page Proof Instructions
This explains to authors how to make any corrections or necessary changes to the final page
proofs of their papers, which they will receive directly from AIAA’s composition vendor.
13) Reprint Orders
This form may be used by authors to order reprints of their papers if they do not pay the
optional publication charges.
III. Sample Evaluations
The examples that follow show the scope of comments and the types of details that
might be included in an Associate Editor’s evaluation and instructions to an author.
Example 1—Specific Guidelines for Revision
Subject to satisfactory major revision, your paper will be accepted for publication in JSR. The
paper seems overly long and unnecessarily wordy and should be reduced to 10,000–12,000
words. As an example, Figures 1, 3, and 4 can be combined into one basic figure with dashed
lines indicating major configuration differences. If the oil flow photographs represent the best
available, they should be deleted because the reproduction is not sufficiently clear to permit
observation of the points made. A concise description of the patterns observed in the
photographs will suffice. A major concern is created by the figures illustrating the M = 4, R = 1 
106 data. From DMS-DR-2069 the accuracies for these data are quoted as pitching moment –
0.0605; rolling moment – 0.0151; and yawing moment – 0.0151. The scales used on the figures
illustrating these data are far smaller than justified by the quoted accuracies. Comments on
trends observed are completely misleading since these trends occur within the data accuracy.
Also, if the data shown in Figure 26 are from CFHT, the scale is much too small. Please make
certain that the symbol size is at least as large as the appropriate data accuracy (i.e., change
scales).
Comments of two technical reviewers aimed at reducing the length of the paper and
improving the quality are provided for your consideration. Please follow the recommendations
of the reviewers wherever possible, and indicate your changes in the comments accompanying
your revised paper; where it is not possible to follow the recommendations, please explain why
not.
Example 2—Gentle Rejection
Although the paper deals with an area of interest to a narrow segment of JSR readers, the
reviewers do not feel it is sufficiently novel to warrant archive publication in JSR. Our readers
are more concerned with application of a technique to a specific problem than an extension of
the method used in Reference 7. We recommend that the authors submit the paper to a more
appropriate journal.
Example 3—Rejection with Specific Reasons
It will not be possible to publish your paper in the JSR. The technical editors feel that little
novel material is presented to the spacecraft specialist and that the subject matter is too narrow
to warrant a survey paper for the nonspecialist. While the editors found the material interesting,
we felt that it was too tutorial in nature for an archive journal.
Example 4—Interpretation of Reviewers’ Comments
Subject to satisfactory major revisions, your paper will be published in the Journal of
Spacecraft and Rockets. Two technical review reports are provided for your consideration.
Please follow the recommendations wherever possible, and indicate your changes in the
comments accompanying your revised paper; where it is not possible to follow the
recommendations, please explain why not. It is not unusual to receive conflicting
recommendations from reviewers relative to whether or not a paper should be published. In
this case, however, there is agreement that major revisions are required. Reviewer 1 essentially
feels that the paper fails to delineate and quantitatively assess basic flow concepts. This
criticism can be overcome by revision. Reviewer 2 feels that the paper is too detailed and
suggests a clear statement of the problem and a presentation of the major results and
conclusions. This criticism is justified; while the introduction establishes the complexity of the
problem, it fails to establish for the uninitiated reader the importance of the problem—i.e.,
launcher performance, etc.
One approach that might significantly improve the paper would be to exclude the many
details of the flight 12 data, which only lead to conjecture about what might have happened
during the test. The emphasis should be placed on the significance or consequences of the valid
data that were obtained.
The use of certain specialized terminology (Rip-Zap, etc.) in the Abstract should be avoided.
A nomenclature section must be provided.
Example 5—Rejection Encouraging Resubmittal at a Later Time
As suggested by the reviewer, this paper has been declined for publication due to a lack of
sufficiently new material to warrant publication at this time. There is of course a continuing
interest among the community in the development of the colloid thruster system, especially as
it gets closer to its projected flight date. The next milestone where publication may be
appropriate (barring substantial and previously unreported performance improvements) might
be an extended test of the complete thruster module.
Example 6—Conditional Acceptance with Detailed Requirements
Pending a revision that satisfactorily accommodates the several points made by the
reviewers, this paper will be accepted for publication in JSR. Regarding the material presented
and the format, option 1 of review #2 should be followed; i.e., provide a complete report on the
ATS-6 experiment. This will entail deletion of any lengthy description of possible remedies and
will thus satisfy comment 6 in review #1.
Other instructions for revision are as follows:
1) Either delete Fig. 2 or replace it with a suitable schematic of the thruster.
2) Delete Fig. 5 and the associated text.
3) The editorial suggestions of reviewer #2 are good. They should be adopted everywhere
except at the bottom of p. 6 and top of p. 7. In addition, I would suggest that you carefully check
your entire paper for correct spelling and grammar.
4) Use mks or dual units if possible.
5) Update the results wherever appropriate or necessary.
6) A summary paragraph must be added.
Finally, the concern of reviewer #2, as stated in his last paragraph, could be alleviated by
some statements, perhaps in the summary, that put the results of this flight in the proper
context of the overall E. P. Program.
Example 7—Revision Guidelines, Including Writing Style Requirements
This paper requires substantial revision before it can be accepted for publication in JSR. Not
only have several technical questions been raised by the reviewers (one of whom wants to see
the revision), but also the writing style itself is very loose, and in many places it is not clear what
point the authors are trying to make.
Regarding the technical comments, the authors will have to appraise the reviewers’ remarks
and incorporate appropriate changes in the revision. Those suggestions that cannot be
accommodated should be addressed in your comments accompanying the revised paper.
In addition, for an archival publication, data should be completely reduced and the message
made clear. The footnote on p. 7 is cause for concern. The authors should not revise this paper
until data analysis is complete and the results are unambiguous.
Concerning the writing style, the purpose of each section and paragraph and their places in
the overall structure of the paper should be firmly established, and the text should reach this
goal clearly and concisely. Standard symbols and notation should be used, and mks or dual
units—mks (English)—are preferred.
Example 8—Specific and Thorough Revision Instructions
Considerable revision and deletion are required prior to consideration of the paper as an
Engineering Note in JSR. This Note should be based on the data obtained. The Introduction and
Experimental Set-Up sections must be shortened, together with deletion of Figs. 1 and 2; and
reference must be made to the authors’ Ref. 12 for details. Some justification for a portion of
the procedure is required: for instance, is regression rate constant? Are throat diameter and
chamber pressure constant? If so, what about variation in rate with G0? Is the thermal transition
time of the polymer short compared with 10 seconds? A serious question concerns the
assumption of constant oxygen flow rate, since the injector is apparently operating unchoked
for some pressures.
The data should be plotted against G, as is standard hybrid-rocket procedure, and compared
with previous studies. The discussion of the axial variation of regression rate (p. 7) is unclear and
unsubstantiated, and should be deleted.
Several of the figures should be combined because of the interrelation of several of the
operating parameters and test results (comments no. 9 and 12).
Reference 6 appeared in the August issue of JSR. Reference 3 is incorrect. Remaining
references should be checked closely. Finally, it is suggested that the authors have a colleague
whose native language is English review the revised manuscript prior to submission for use of
articles and correctness of verb number.
III.F. Acceptance Procedures for Archive Journals of AIAA*
The Institute publishes six archival journals. If an Editor-in-Chief of a journal believes that a paper
should be submitted to a different AIAA journal of more suitable scope, the paper will be returned to
the author with that recommendation. In the journals, material may be published in one of the
following forms: Survey Paper (broad review of literature in specific field), Full Paper (including
abstract), Note (short paper disclosing new, significant data or developments of limited scope),
Comment (discussion relating to paper previously published by AIAA), or Readers’ Forum (brief
discussion of previous investigations). The following paragraphs explain the Acceptance Procedure for
submitted material.
I.
Evaluation of Manuscripts and Preprints
1.
The first step is an examination of submitted papers by the Editor-in-Chief. He or she
first tests the manuscript according to the several criteria of subject scope, archival editorial style,
apparent technical validity, topical importance, timeliness, relationship to prior publication, conciseness,
appropriate references, and length. Papers that vary widely from the prescribed archival style (those
written as speeches, ill-defined manuscripts, progress reports, or news releases, or those strongly
flavored with advertising or sales nuances) are returned to the authors immediately. Papers in which
the English is difficult to understand also may be returned for rewriting prior to technical evaluation. If
the subject scope makes the paper more suitable to one of the other AIAA journals, the Editor-in-Chief
may return it to the author immediately with that recommendation. (If the paper was submitted from
another country, the Editor-in-Chief may refer it directly to the other journal to avoid long mail delays;
in that case, the author will be informed of the transfer.) If, in his or her judgment, the paper obviously
fails in the areas of technical validity and/or advance over prior publication, the Editor-in-Chief can
reject it, giving the author the reasons for rejection, or return it to the author for preparation as a Note.
2.
If it survives the tests at this point, the paper will be assigned to the Associate Editor for
that journal who has most direct knowledge of the subject matter and of expert reviewers in the field.
The Associate Editor then evaluates the paper according to the same criteria and, in most cases, has the
paper sent to one or more reviewers in the field (usually two) for confidential review. The Associate
Editor may, however, at his or her discretion, accept the paper without review, reject it giving explicit
reason, or return it to the author for preparation in a different format.
3.
Considerable significance is attached to the review reports. Each reviewer is asked to
judge the technical validity of the manuscript and the extent of its advance over work previously
published. The reviewer is asked also for advice as to whether the paper merits publication in an
archive journal. However, the decision to publish, to require major revision before publication, or to
* This policy was approved on October 16, 1964, by the Editors-in-Chief of the archive journals and by the Vice
President–Publications, and revised in January 1994.
reject for reasons cited lies first with the Associate Editor and ultimately with the Editor-in-Chief.
Reviewers often disagree with each other in their advice, and some reviewers tend to be too lenient (or
too severe) in the light of the technical faults they have found in a paper. Hence the publication
decision is made by the technical editors.
II.
The Editorial Decision to Accept or Reject
4.
It may take six months or more after receipt of the manuscript or preprint to accomplish
the evaluation and review steps discussed above. (When several AIAA meetings are closely spaced, it
may take longer.) The Editors will inform the author of their decision (acceptance, conditional
acceptance, or rejection) as soon as possible. In the case of rejection, the author will be given specific
reasons related to the criteria enumerated above. In the case of conditional acceptance, the required
revisions will be clearly indicated. On some occasions, the Editors may anticipate a need for further
reviews after revision; if so, the author will be notified.
5.
The next step is up to the author. If the paper has been rejected or if extensive revisions
have been requested which the author believes are incorrect or unwarranted, then he or she is entitled
to submit a point-by-point rebuttal to the Editor’s statement of reasons and the reviewers’ comments.
The rebuttal then is analyzed by the Editors, and a decision is made. In rare cases of a complex point of
dispute, the Editors, at their discretion, may mandate additional reviews. In no case shall a paper go
through more than two reviewing cycles before a decision is given. If the dispute still remains
unresolved, then the decision of the Editor-in-Chief is final and overrides all other considerations.
6.
It is the policy of the Editors to make sure that no unconventional hypothesis or original
idea is throttled if there is a chance that such a paper might stimulate either progress or constructive
controversy on a technical point. It also is a basic principle of the publications program of the Institute
that all authors shall have an equal opportunity to have their papers published, provided they can meet
certain objectively defined standards. However, the primary responsibility of the Editors is to maintain
these high technical standards for the archive journals of the Institute. This commitment takes
precedence over all other factors. Within the bounds of that objective, the following working policy has
been adopted by the Editors.
III.
Fair Procedure for Rebuttal by Author
7.
In the confrontation between the rejection statement and the rebuttal statement, the
decision goes in favor of the author if the dissenting reviewer’s case is not clearly convincing.
8.
Since promptness is the essence of fairness, an author who has received no decision on
his or her rebuttal within three months is welcome to request an immediate explanation and status
report on the paper. If the forthcoming report is unsatisfactory to the author, then he or she may
request a prompt decision regarding either rejection or conditional acceptance. The Editor should make
every effort to respond to this request in a maximum of four weeks.
9.
By the same token, authors who are requested by Editors to revise their papers must
make an effort to accomplish the requested revisions in the stated period, which normally is four weeks
for major revisions, three weeks for minor revisions. If the author does not respond to our subsequent
inquiries, the paper will be regarded as withdrawn. Normally, an author who has good reason to
request a time extension will be granted such an extension.
10. A reviewer who feels strongly that a particular paper should not be published may be given
the opportunity, if the Editor decides nevertheless to accept it, to write the criticism as a Technical
Comment. The author then is allowed to write a closing response for publication in the same issue as
the Comment.
IV.
Formal Acceptance and Publication
11. Formal acceptance will not occur until the author has complied with all of the revision
requests (if any) made by the Associate Editor or the Associate Editor has accepted the author’s
rebuttal, and the author has prepared the paper in the AIAA archival style as described in “Manuscript
Style and Format.”
12. When a paper is formally accepted, it will be scheduled for publication in a forthcoming
issue, and the author will be so informed. Survey Papers and Full Papers normally will be assigned to
issues in the order in which they initially were received. Depending upon the number of papers awaiting
publication and the projected size of issues, this may require that papers be scheduled several issues
ahead. Items for the Notes, Comments, or Readers’ Forum sections will be scheduled for the earliest
available issue. The Editor-in-Chief also may designate certain special-category papers for immediate
publication.
13. Galley proofs will be sent to authors for correction and release approximately two months
prior to scheduled publication. Authors should inform the AIAA Journals Department of any anticipated
change of address between acceptance and galley proof time. Authors are expected to read and return
their galleys within seven days (maximum).
14. To allow for late or non-return of galleys by authors and to provide the flexibility to meet
issue-length and topic-mix constraints, issues will be overscheduled by about 25%. Thus, there will
always be a certain number of papers held over for the next issue. Papers not published in the issue for
which they were originally scheduled will have first priority for publication in the following issue.
15. All authors and co-authors will receive a complimentary copy of the issue in which their
papers appear.
III.G. Ethical Standards for Publication of Aeronautics and
Astronautics Research
I.
Preface
The American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) serves the engineering and scientific
aerospace communities and society at large in several ways, including the publication of journals that
present the results of scientific and engineering research. The Editor-in-Chief of a journal of the AIAA
has the responsibility to maintain the AIAA ethical standards for reviewing and accepting papers
submitted to that journal. In the main, these ethical standards derive from the AIAA definition of the
scope of the journal and from the community perception of standards of quality for scientific and
engineering work and its presentation. The following ethical standards reflect the conviction that the
observance of high ethical standards is so vital to the whole engineering and scientific enterprise that a
definition of those standards should be brought to the attention of all concerned.
II.
Ethical Standards
A.
Obligations of Editors-in-Chief and Associate Editors*
1.
The Editor-in-Chief has complete responsibility and authority to accept a submitted
paper for publication or to reject it. The Editor-in-Chief may delegate this responsibility to Associate
Editors, who may confer with reviewers for an evaluation to use in making this decision.
2.
The Editor will give unbiased and impartial consideration to all manuscripts offered for
publication, judging each on its scientific and engineering merits without regard to race, gender,
religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the author(s).
3.
The Editor should process manuscripts promptly.
4.
The Editor and the editorial staff will not disclose any information about a manuscript
under consideration or its disposition to anyone other than those from whom professional advice is
sought. The names of reviewers will not be released without the reviewers’ permission.
5.
The Editor will respect the intellectual independence of authors.
* Throughout this document, the term “Editor,” when used alone, applies to both Editor-in-Chief and Associate
Editor. When one or the other bears the specific responsibility, the full title is used.
6.
Editorial responsibility and authority for any manuscript authored by an Editor-in-Chief
and submitted to the journal must be delegated to some other qualified person, such as an Associate
Editor of that journal. When it is an Associate Editor participating in the debate, the Editor-in-Chief
should either assume the responsibility or delegate it to another Associate Editor. Editors should avoid
situations of real or perceived conflicts of interest. If an Editor chooses to participate in an ongoing
scientific debate within the journal, the Editor should arrange for some other qualified person to take
editorial responsibility.
7.
Unpublished information, arguments, or interpretations disclosed in a submitted
manuscript must not be used in the research of an Editor-in-Chief, Associate Editor, or reviewer except
with the consent of the author.
8.
If an Editor is presented with convincing evidence that the main substance or
conclusions of a paper published in the journal are erroneous, the Editor must facilitate publication of an
appropriate paper or technical comment pointing out the error and, if possible, correcting it.
B.
Obligations of Authors
1.
An author’s central obligation is to present a concise, accurate account of the research
performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance.
2.
A paper should contain sufficient detail and reference to public sources of information
such that the author’s peers could repeat the work.
3.
An author should cite those publications that have been influential in determining the
nature of the reported work and that will guide the reader quickly to the earlier work that is essential
for understanding the present investigation. Information obtained privately, as in conversation,
correspondence, or discussion with third parties, should not be used or reported in the author’s work
without explicit permission from the investigator with whom the information originated. Information
obtained in the course of confidential services, such as refereeing manuscripts or grant applications,
should be treated similarly.
4.
Fragmentation of research papers should be avoided. A scientist who has done
extensive work on a system or group of related systems should organize publication so that each paper
gives a complete account of a particular aspect of the general study.
5.
It is inappropriate for an author to submit manuscripts describing essentially the same
research to more than one journal of primary publication.
6.
An accurate, nontrivial criticism of the content of a published paper is justified;
however, in no case is personal criticism considered to be appropriate.
7.
To protect the integrity of authorship, only persons who have significantly contributed
to the research and paper presentation should be listed as authors. The corresponding author attests to
the fact that any others named as authors have seen the final version of the paper and have agreed to
its submission for publication. Deceased persons who meet the criterion for co-authorship should be
included, with a footnote reporting date of death. No fictitious name should be listed as an author or
co-author. The author who submits a manuscript for publication accepts the responsibility of having
included as co-authors all persons appropriate and none inappropriate.
8.
C.
It is inappropriate to submit manuscripts with an obvious marketing orientation.
Obligations of Reviewers of Manuscripts
1.
Inasmuch as the reviewing of manuscripts is an essential step in the publication process,
every publishing engineer and scientist has an obligation to do a fair share of reviewing. On the average,
an author should expect to review twice as many papers as an author writes.
2.
A chosen reviewer who feels inadequately qualified or lacks the time to judge the
research reported in a manuscript should return it promptly to the Editor.
3.
A reviewer of a manuscript should judge the quality of the manuscript objectively and
respect the intellectual independence of the authors. In no case is personal criticism appropriate.
4.
A reviewer should be sensitive even to the appearance of a conflict of interest. If in
doubt, the reviewer should return the manuscript promptly without review, advising the Editor of the
conflict of interest or bias.
5.
A reviewer should not evaluate a manuscript authored or co-authored by a person with
whom the reviewer has a personal or professional connection if the relationship would bias judgment of
the manuscript.
6.
A reviewer should treat a manuscript sent for review as a confidential document. Its
contents, as well as the reviewers’ recommendations, should neither be shown to nor discussed with
others except, in special cases, to persons from whom specific advice may be sought; in that event, the
identities of those consulted should be disclosed to the Editor.
7.
A reviewer should explain and support judgments adequately so that Editors and
authors may understand the basis of the comments. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or
argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation.
8.
A reviewer should be alert to failure of authors to cite relevant work by other scientists.
A reviewer should call to the Editor’s attention any substantial similarity between the manuscript under
consideration and any published paper or any manuscript submitted concurrently to another journal.
9.
A reviewer should not use or disclose unpublished information, arguments, or
interpretations contained in a manuscript under consideration, except with the consent of the author.
D.
Obligations of Engineers and Scientists Making Statements to Society at Large
1.
A scientist or engineer publishing in the popular literature has the same basic obligation
to be accurate in reporting observations and to be unbiased in interpreting them as when publishing in a
technical journal.
2.
A scientist or engineer should strive to keep public writing, remarks, and interviews as
accurate as possible.
3.
A scientist or engineer should not proclaim a discovery to the public unless the support
for it is of strength sufficient to warrant publication in the technical literature. An account of the work
and results that support a public pronouncement should be submitted as quickly as possible for
publication in a technical journal.
III.
Acknowledgments
The ethical standards embodied in this document were adopted by the Publications Committee of AIAA
on August 16, 1989, and are endorsed by the Editors-in-Chief. With minor changes, these standards are
adopted from those published by the American Geophysical Union and are used with their permission.
III.H. Editorial Policy Statement on Numerical Accuracy and
Experimental Uncertainty
The purpose of this statement is to reiterate the desire to have high-quality investigations with properly
documented results published in the AIAA journals, and to clarify acceptable standards for presentation
of numerical and experimental results. Recently there has been considerable concern with the quality
of published numerical solutions. Also the practice of including error bars on experimental results is
often lacking. In response to these problems, a succinct policy statement on these items is as follows:
The AIAA journals will not accept for publication any paper reporting (1) numerical solutions of an
engineering problem that fails adequately to address accuracy of the computed results or (2)
experimental results unless the accuracy of the data is adequately presented.
The implementation of this policy will be at the discretion of the Editors and Associate Editors of the
journals.
The accuracy of the computed results is concerned with how well the specified governing equations in
the paper have been solved numerically. The appropriateness of the governing equations for modeling
the physical phenomena and comparison with experimental data is not part of this evaluation. Accuracy
of the numerical results can be judged from grid refinement studies, variation of numerical parameters
that influence the results, comparison with exact solutions, and any other technique the author selects.
The validity of the accuracy estimation will be judged by the reviewers of the paper. An estimate of
accuracy of the numerical results must be presented when comparisons with other numerical and
experimental results are given, and when new results of the author will likely become data for future
comparisons. Since accuracy of various computed results obtained from a numerical solution can vary
significantly, the accuracy of the result being used must be stated. Accuracy of results from a validated
code must still be established to show that proper input parameters have been used with the code.
Estimates of experimental uncertainty are required for all plotted or tabulated data obtained by
authors. If data from other workers are used, they require no uncertainty. Unless otherwise stated and
properly referenced, it is assumed that the uncertainty of authors’ output data is estimated by the
small-sample method1 with assumed odds 20:1. All reported data must show uncertainty estimates if
used in text or tables; for example, T = 642 + 8 K. All figures reporting new data should contain
uncertainty estimates either on the figure with error bars in both coordinate directions or in the caption;
for example, uncertainty in T = + 8 K at 20:1 odds. Investigations with limited data should present
1 Kline, S. J., and McClintock, F. A., “Describing Uncertainties in Simple-Sample Experiments,” Mechanical
Engineering, Jan. 1953, pp. 3–8.
tabulated results in the paper while extensive data should be available elsewhere in tabulated form for
use by other workers.
Finally, the accepted documentation procedures for a technical investigation must be used. For
computational papers, the author must provide an adequate description of the numerical solution
procedure, if not documented elsewhere. In addition, the complete governing equations must be
specified with sufficient detail along with the input parameters to the code so that a reader could
reproduce the results of the paper. For papers concerned with experimental test, thorough
documentation of the experimental conditions, instrumentation, and data reduction techniques is
required.
III.I. Guidelines and Procedures for New Journals*
I.
Introduction
The technical interests and responsibilities of members of AIAA range from fundamental scientific
advances to major systems such as aircraft and spacecraft. The technical activities of the Institute can
be classified in four categories, as follows:
1.
Fundamental scientific contributions
2.
Technical discipline advances
3.
Specific subsystem developments and applications
4.
Major systems developments and applications
With the publication of the Journal of Thermophysics and Heat Transfer in 1987, AIAA committed itself
to journals in all four of the above categories. These are as follows:
Category 1:
AIAA Journal (AIAAJ)
Category 2:
Journal of Thermophysics and Heat Transfer (JTHT)
Category 3:
Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics (JGCD)
Journal of Propulsion and Power (JPP)
Category 4:
Journal of Aircraft (JA)
Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets (JSR)
The scope of AIAAJ, in principle, covers fundamental scientific contributions from all AIAA scientific and
technical disciplines. The scopes of JA and JSR are limited to applications papers. However, the other
three journals, JGCD, JPP, and JTHT, include in their scopes fundamental contributions to the particular
subsystem, as well as applications.
When the AIAA was founded in 1963 by merger of the ARS and IAS, a clear publication policy was agreed
upon whereby all papers that dealt with advances in basic, scientific disciplines were to be published in
AIAAJ, and all applications papers in JA and JSR. There was a de facto abrogation of this policy by the
appearance of JGCD, JPP, and later JTHT.
This document, therefore, will not address policy issues in publishing AIAA journals, but rather will
provide guidelines and procedures for starting a new AIAA journal in any one of the four categories
mentioned previously.
II.
Starting a New Journal: Who and When?
Based on a broad interpretation of the AIAA charter and the four publication categories identified
above, new AIAA journals will most probably fall in categories 2 and 3, i.e., discipline-oriented or
specialist journals (e.g., JTHT) and subsystem applications (e.g., JGCD, JPP).
A new journal could be initiated either by the membership at large or by the AIAA management. In the
former case, a large primary interest group, consisting of one or more Technical Committees (TCs) with a
substantial pool of contributors, could find their papers spread over several AIAA journals, published in
proceedings, and/or published in specialty journals of societies other than the AIAA (e.g., ASME, IEEE).
New journals based on corporate decisions arise when AIAA management identifies new opportunities
in a wider interpretation of the scope of the Institute. Such was the case with the now-defunct Journal
of Energy.
III.
Criteria for Justifying a New Journal
A number of related criteria should be recognized as a prerequisite to publishing a new journal. These
are as follows:
A.
Membership in the primary interest group must exceed 2000, and the pool of
contributors (or authors) must be able to produce 400 papers a year.
B.
Over a period of five to seven years, the interest group that is requesting a new journal
must have established a substantial record of publications in its area of specialty. The publications could
be in the form of proceedings (following specialist meetings) or special issues in existing journals (AIAA
or other society journals).
C.
The proposed journal should represent disciplines, subsystem developments or systems
developments, and applications that have a wide support base in AIAA, as well as in other professional
societies.
D.
The requesting group should demonstrate one or both of the following:
1.
There are no adequate journals in existence for the particular discipline.
2.
The backlog of existing journals (non-AIAA) is excessive.
* Prepared by the Publications Journals Subcommittee in July 1986 (Kenell Touryan, Dana Moran, Edward Price);
adopted by the Publications Committee in August 1987; updated in July 1997 to reflect Publications Committee
and AIAA staff structural changes.
E.
Surveys conducted by the interest group and the AIAA staff demonstrate a reasonable
prospect for financial success of the proposed journal (e.g., a total paid circulation of 2000, including
400–500 library subscriptions).
F.
A strong endorsement must be available from the AIAA membership and the Technical
Activities Committee (TAC). Support from the Editors-in-Chief of the other AIAA journals will be most
helpful.
G.
The proposed journal is able to attract an Editor-in-Chief and Associate Editors with
strong reputations in the scientific/technical community. They should be capable of operating a journal
and willing to perform their tasks promptly.
H.
Proponents of the new journal should be able to demonstrate to the Publications
Committee and the AIAA Board of Directors that the new journal will have minimum adverse effect on
existing AIAA journals (e.g., less than 10% decrease in submissions).
IV.
Important Issues and Concerns
Publishing a new journal is both costly and time-consuming. New journals seldom break even financially
in less than three years; in fact, five years is not considered unusual. Therefore, it is essential that the
initiators of new AIAA journals consider the following, in addition to the eight criteria listed in the
previous section:
A.
What alternate methods can fulfill the needs that would be filled by the proposed
journal? Consideration should be given to:
1.
enlarging the scope of an existing AIAA journal before proceeding with a new one; or
2.
publishing special issues, once or twice a year, as part of an existing AIAA journal.
B.
U.S. government pressures for controlling technology transfer to foreign countries have
reduced the pool of available papers in certain disciplines. A strict interpretation of no-foreigndissemination rules could reduce the pool of archival papers published in the open literature.
C.
A new AIAA journal will always take away from existing journals. It may be better to
make an existing journal more “healthy” than to create two (or more) marginal ones.
V.
Procedures: From Request to Final Approval
The following steps must be taken by an interest group proposing a new journal:
A.
A primary interest group (e.g., one or more TCs) reviews its need for a new journal in
light of the preceding criteria and presents it to TAC.
B.
A draft proposal is prepared and submitted to the Journals Subcommittee. [Note:
Under the current subcommittee structure, it probably would be the Publications Review Subcommittee,
or possibly a special task force appointed by the Vice President–Publications. The balance of this
document assumes that the Publications Review Subcommittee takes the responsibility.] The draft
addresses all of the criteria and issues listed above in a preliminary manner.
C.
The Subcommittee meets with the key individuals proposing the new journal and
reviews and critiques the proposal.
D.
If the proposal has sufficient merit for further consideration, copies are prepared and
distributed to the Vice President–Publications, any other appropriate Publications Subcommittees,
Editors-in-Chief of existing AIAA journals, and the AIAA staff market analyst and market strategist.
E.
A preliminary market survey is prepared by the market analyst. This survey, along with
inputs from all parties listed above, is presented to the members of the Publications Review
Subcommittee and discussed in detail with the initiators of the proposal.
F.
If the draft proposal still has merit, it is revised by the initiators to reflect the discussion
mentioned above and resubmitted to the Chair of the Publications Review Subcommittee.
G.
A formal presentation is made by the Chair of the Subcommittee to the full Publications
Committee. This presentation is attended by members of the primary interest group, Editors-in-Chief of
current AIAA journals, and the staff market analyst and market strategist (or a designated staff
representative).
H.
If the proposal continues to show merit, the Publications Committee requests the AIAA
staff, together with key representatives of the interest group, to conduct a more thorough market
analysis and prepare a five-year financial plan.
I.
Results of this survey and the financial plan are presented at the next meeting of the
Publications Committee, at which time the members vote to approve or disapprove publication of the
new journal.
J.
If approved (by a simple majority vote), the proposal is taken by the Vice President–
Publications to the Board of Directors for final approval.
K.
The new Editor-in-Chief (approved by the Board of Directors) meets with the AIAA staff
to plan the start-up details of the new journal. For a healthy start, a quarterly journal should have a
backlog of 75 papers ready before the first issue goes to print. For a bimonthly, this number is 100, and
for a monthly, the number is 200.
VI.
Sample Schedule
A representative schedule (from the start-up of JTHT) is given to provide the members of the new
journal team with an estimate of the time it takes to bring the new journal from its inception to initial
publication. Based on the histories of JPP and JTHT, this estimated time is about 18 months (see
schedule).
JTHT Schedule (from inception to publication):
January 1983
Feasibility study initiated by Thermophysics TC.
January 1985
Thermophysics TC votes to discontinue publishing in AIAA Progress
in Astronautics and Aeronautics book series.
June 1985

Preliminary proposal presented to Journals Subcommittee and
Publications Committee for evaluation.

Preliminary market survey initiated.
August 1985
Detailed proposal completed.
September 1985
Proposal submitted to Journals Subcommittee.
October 1985

TAC endorsement obtained.

Publications Committee approves proposal and solicits funding
from the Institute Development Committee (IDC).

AIAA Board of Directors gives go-ahead.

Plans made to solicit support from heat transfer community.
New editorial board begins soliciting new thermophysics and
heat transfer papers for proposed journal and transferring
appropriate papers from existing journal backlogs (with
consent of authors).

Publications Committee and Journals Subcommittee
representatives meet with AIAA Finance Committee.
November 1985
January 1986
Finance Committee approves proposal.
February 1986

Detailed market survey completed.

IDC approves funding.

Board of Directors gives final approval.
June 1986
Marketing brochure prepared.
October 1986
Early publication of first issue; mailed as free sample as part of
promotion plan.
January 1987
Official publication date of first issue of JTHT.
Note: The first JTHT paper was submitted on November 20, 1985; the 100th paper was submitted on
August 11, 1986.
VII.
Discontinuing a Journal
Each new journal must be justified on the basis of continuous operation. No new journal appears on a
trial basis. Journals are not planned with a demise in mind. However, decisions are often made on the
basis of limited information, and unpredictable events in the future could cause a journal to become
financially or technically nonviable. Two such cases occurred with AIAA journals. The first was the
Journal of Hydronautics, which starved to death because of a dearth of contributors (see Appendix for
details), and the second was the Journal of Energy. The latter was terminated because the best
predictions for a growing emphasis on energy technologies did not materialize after the 1973 oil
embargo.
To avoid journal terminations (or minimize the impact of a termination should a demise become
unavoidable), the Publications Review Subcommittee shall be responsible for the following actions:
A.
The Subcommittee reviews, on a regular basis and in depth, the status of at least one
AIAA journal per year.
B.
The Subcommittee members track the backlog and circulation of each journal (with
assistance from the AIAA staff).
C.
If backlogs and/or circulation levels for any journal show a steady decline over a twoyear period, active steps are taken by the Editor-in-Chief and Associate Editors to remedy the situation.
D.
In case of such a decline, the Vice President–Publications instructs the Subcommittee to
review the action steps taken by the Editor-in-Chief on a quarterly basis. (A healthy backlog of accepted
papers for a monthly journal is, for example, 60–65 papers per issue.)
E.
If the backlog continues to decline in spite of the best efforts of the Editors, the
Subcommittee recommends to the Vice President–Publications and the AIAA staff a reduction in the
frequency of publication (i.e., for a monthly journal, changing to bimonthly or quarterly issues).
F.
If journal circulation drops to a level where the economic viability of the journal is in
serious question, and/or the backlog situation does not improve, the Publications Committee
recommends to the Board of Directors that publication of the journal be terminated.
Appendix: Brief Histories of Current and Past AIAA Journals
AIAA Journal, by George W. Sutton
At the time of the merger of the American Rocket Society and the Institute of the Aerospace Sciences,
they each had their own archive journals, ARS Journal and the Journal of the Aerospace Sciences,
respectively. As part of the merger, it was decided that there would be only one “research” journal, the
AIAA Journal, and two applications journals, the Journal of Aircraft and the Journal of Spacecraft and
Rockets. All research types of papers were to be in the first one, including atmospheric sciences, space
sciences, propulsion, combustion, power, fluids, structures, materials, thermophysics, etc. This overall
arrangement proceeded in an orderly process for many years.
All of the AIAA Journal papers were published in numerical order of their log numbers, as soon as they
were accepted. Hence there was considerable random inhomogeneity in the listing on the cover. The
main problem was the enormous backlog of papers that built up because of the Apollo effort. After
1975, this backlog gradually subsided.
In this time period, considerable thought was given to better means of delivery of hard copy, including
“selective dissemination.” Complaints had begun to arise that individual subscribers were running out
of shelf space. In addition, it was not particularly easy to retrieve technical information from the AIAA
Journal—electronic retrieval was not yet available. Nevertheless, there continued to be a sense of
uneasiness that some measures needed to be taken to make the AIAA Journal more manageable.
The first major divergence from the previous policy was a request by a group to break out and form a
separate journal for guidance and control. While not originally incorporated in the title, the spacecraft
dynamics constituency also seemed to be in favor of it. The motivation seemed to be a fear that other
journals which are devoted strictly to this subject would make inroads on both manuscript submission
and AIAA membership. While it was clear that most of the papers for it would come from the AIAA
Journal, it was hoped that it would also contain papers devoted to both applications and relevant
hardware developments. There was also considerable opposition to the concept of creating a journal
that did not quite fit into the previous formula. Nevertheless, the proponents were able to demonstrate
a large enough constituency of authors and subscribers to make it appear to be a viable concept. And it
was fairly successful. But, partly as a result of this, I decided to compartmentalize the index on the cover
of the AIAA Journal by discipline, so that readers could immediately locate articles of interest to them.
This was a successful change, one that I hope all other journals will adopt.
Flush with success, as the Arab energy crisis continued and as trouble started brewing on the nuclear
front, it seemed desirable to start another journal—Energy. It would draw some theoretical papers
from AIAA Journal, and some (mainly from JA and JSR) on propulsion and power, respectively. Unlike
JGC, this subject did not have a sufficiently broad constituency, and the impact on the AIAA Journal was
minimal.
The formation of the Journal of Propulsion and Power did have a major impact on the AIAA Journal. All
papers on combustion of fuels, compressors, advanced space propulsion, etc., disappeared from the
AIAA Journal. Again, this was the formation of a journal based on a technical field, not a discipline, but it
seemed to be a way of countering other societies that were initiating separate journals devoted to
turbomachinery. General papers on reacting flows and cascade fluid flow are still more suitable to the
AIAA Journal because of their generality.
The formation of the Journal of Thermophysics and Heat Transfer further removed about 10% of the
papers from the AIAA Journal. The formation of this journal was spearheaded by members of the
discipline who saw their previous publication outlet, the Progress Series, disappearing because of lack of
sales, e.g., too small a constituency. In addition, the papers that were submitted to AIAA’s journals
tended to be spread out among them. For the more research-oriented papers, there is still a close
relation between fluid mechanics and heat transfer, which raises problems in deciding which is the more
suitable journal for a paper that contains both subjects.
On the mechanical side, the shift to in-house electronic composition was an excellent method of fighting
inflation. However, the shift of tracking papers from AIAA HQ to the Editor-in-Chief has not permitted
satisfactory tracking of papers; the AIAA Journal still needs to perform this more expeditiously than the
manual searching presently used. It is hoped that electronic paper tracking can be instituted in the near
future in conjunction with the move to Washington.
In the meantime, because of the reduction in submissions and maintenance of a high publication rate,
the backlog problem has subsided. It may build up slightly due to the move to Washington, but the chief
concern will be the staffing and training of a large number of new publication professionals.
Journal of Aircraft, by Allen E. Fuhs and Kenell J. Touryan
At the merging of the American Rocket Society and the Institute of the Aerospace Sciences in 1963, the
Officers and Directors of the newly formed Institute, the AIAA, established the Journal of Aircraft,
alongside the AIAA Journal and the Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets. Volume 1, Number 1 of the
Journal of Aircraft appeared in January–February 1963 with Carl F. Schmidt as its Editor-in-Chief.
The mission of JA was to provide a medium for the exchange of new ideas and knowledge which would
contribute to the advancement of the science and technology of airborne flight. As with the JSR, the
emphasis of this new journal was on significant applications and effects of new knowledge on the
technology of airborne flight.
When one compares the scope of JA published in the first issue in 1963 with the scope described in
1987, one notices very minor changes in the ensuing 24 years. The new subdisciplines for airborne flight
that have been added in the past decade are 1) application of computers to aircraft (instead of flight
navigation); 2) aircraft-oriented information systems; and 3) integration of control systems into aircraft
design.
JA is being published monthly [at the time of the creation of this document]. In 1983 it suffered its first
major drop in the backlog of submitted papers, primarily as a result of the change instituted in the paper
acceptance policy for AIAA preprints. Restrictions placed on technology transfer to unfriendly nations
and the lack of new nonmilitary aircraft programs seem to have contributed to this decline.
Effective in January 1987, the present Editor-in-Chief (Thomas M. Weeks) and his Associate Editors
embarked on more aggressive solicitation of archival papers in order to increase submittal rates to JA.
The July 1987 figures already show an upturn in the JA backlog. In addition, a new emphasis in the areas
of atmospheric environment, aircraft acoustics, and aircraft design will ensure the continued health of
JA.
Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, by Donald C. Fraser
The journal publishes qualified papers on dynamics, stability, guidance, control, navigation, celestial
mechanics, astrodynamics, optimization, electronics, avionics, and information processing related to
astronautical, aeronautical, and marine systems.
This journal grew out of a frustration on the part of the large guidance, control, and dynamics and
astrodynamics community of the AIAA that papers of interest to them were spread among all journals.
Packaged in that way, they had to subscribe to each journal and then were confronted with a situation
where most papers in each journal they bought were not of interest to them. A consensus grew to
launch a new journal which would publish these papers together. Support was secured from the
Guidance and Control, Astrodynamics, and Atmospheric Flight Mechanics Technical Committees, and
then from TAC and the Publications Committee. To establish the viability of the new journal, an
experimental issue of the Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets was published in February 1977 which was
restricted to content that would be included in the new journal. Member feedback from this
experiment indicated that there was sufficient support for a viable journal, both from a paper-submittal
and circulation-rate point of view. At a joint meeting of TAC and the Publications Committee, a journal
entitled the Journal of Guidance and Control was agreed upon. This title was a compromise. Based on
these steps, approval for a new journal was obtained from the AIAA Board of Directors. The previous
Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, Donald C. Fraser, was appointed as the Editorin-Chief of the new journal, and he recruited Associate Editors from the existing journals, together with
a few new ones, to make up the editorial board. Papers in process from existing journals plus newly
recruited ones filled the first issues in a way that fulfilled the full scope. The first issue appeared in
January 1978.
The debate over the title and scope of the new journal did not end with its inception. The dynamics
community, in particular, was disappointed that their specialty was not included in the journal title.
Lobbying within TAC and the Publications Committee continued. This culminated in a decision made in
1981 to change the title of the journal to emphasize the dynamics part of the scope. Beginning in
January 1982, the title was changed to the Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics. At the same
time, a re-emphasis was placed on inclusion of papers on aircraft stability and control, handling
qualities, spacecraft dynamics, aircraft dynamics, basic mechanics, and similar subjects.
Future plans for the journal include a continuing emphasis on applications papers. A number of new
history of key technology papers have been identified, and special issues on digital avionics and artificial
intelligence are in the planning stages. Emphasis will continue on the recruitment of more avionics
papers, which are the practical embodiment of much guidance and control work.
Journal of Propulsion and Power, by R. H. Woodward Waesche
The original genesis of the Journal of Propulsion and Power was the concept advanced by the
Airbreathing Propulsion TC of a Journal of Gas Turbines. This journal was to provide a “home” in the
AIAA archival journal structure for those many researchers in the field of turbomachinery, since neither
JSR nor JA was a suitable focal point. In addition, it was known that an Israeli journal in the same
general area was being considered, and that consideration was being given to an ASME journal in the
same field. Following discussions by TAC and the Publications Committee, R. H. Woodward Waesche
was given the task of evaluating the potential success of such a journal. Discussions were held with the
five propulsion-related TCs; the relevant paper submittal and circulation statistics were also reviewed to
determine the potential sources of papers and subscribers.
Two primary questions were raised during these discussions—would propulsion other than gas turbines
be included, and would the scope include basic research? There was considerable concern in the rocket
community about being part of a Journal of Gas Turbines, and there was also a strong concern that
many organizations would not wish to purchase yet another journal. During a discussion of these issues
at a TAC meeting in November 1982, the place of the new journal in the overall journal structure was
also debated; i.e., if basic research were included, it would completely destroy the original concept of
applications-oriented journals (JA, JSR) and basic-research journals (AIAAJ).
It was eventually decided, in January 1983, that the new journal would be a viable one only if rockets
were included and that the title should be the Journal of Propulsion, to reflect this scope. The title was
later changed to the current one, even though the Journal of Energy (JE) was, at this time, struggling and
it was feared that inclusion of power-generation papers in JPP would spell the end of JE. A survey was
conducted at the 1983 Propulsion Conference with a generally positive response. The survey also
revealed that rockets should definitely be included in the scope of the journal. Acceptance of JPP by the
Publications Committee was achieved in August 1983, but only with the understanding that it would be
like the former ARS journal, Jet Propulsion; i.e., it would include all propulsion-related papers, even
those dealing with basic combustion phenomena when they were related to propulsion. No analysis of
the financial viability of the new journal was made at that time, largely because of the above-mentioned
survey.
The working group headed by Dr. Waesche was then replaced by a task force headed by Allen E. Fuhs,
which met in November 1983 to discuss the scope of the new journal and to screen recommendations
for editors for both JPP and the new JSR, which would no longer include propulsion-related papers. (A
separate group headed by Paul F. Holloway evaluated the future of JSR.)
In January 1984, William H. Heiser (then AIAA Vice President–Publications) appointed Gordon C. Oates
as Editor-in-Chief of JPP; an editorial board was presented to the Publications Committee in May 1984,
and the first Associate Editors were appointed later that month to allow for processing of papers from
the 1984 Propulsion Conference. In addition, papers then in the manuscript evaluation process for
AIAAJ, JA, and JSR were reviewed for possible transfer to JPP. A marketing plan was set up, including a
sample issue later in 1984 and announcements at both the AIAA and JANNAF Propulsion Conferences in
the summer of 1984. The first issue was published in January 1985.
Although there was some residual opposition to the new journal from some TCs in the propulsion
community, expansion of the editorial board to represent additional interests alleviated many of these
concerns. Further discussions have been held which have ensured better working relations with all of
the relevant Technical Committees, including involving the TCs in suggestions for potential AEs.
The future of JPP appears bright. Active participation in the relevant technical meetings, e.g., the
Propulsion Conference, has produced a continuing growth in submittals from these meetings. At the
same time, over-the-transom papers are appearing at an increasing rate, so that the backlog is growing
at a healthy rate. The staff of Associate Editors has been expanded from the original seven to ten, both
for seeking potential papers (especially in power generation) and for efficiency in processing the
resultant manuscripts. The membership in this group has been diversified, including representatives of
the three services, NASA, universities, the propulsion industry, and research centers. A wider range of
technical expertise is also represented. The Editorial Advisory Board will be tasked to provide
applications-oriented papers in new fields of propulsion and power. The original concept of a Journal of
Gas Turbines has indeed expanded to one with a broad base which is rapidly being accepted as a journal
which is the proper outlet for propulsion-related studies and is the journal of choice for much of the
entire propulsion community.
Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, by Paul F. Holloway
As noted in other summaries, the Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets was one of the “triad” established at
the time of the merger of the Institute of the Aerospace Sciences and the American Rocket Society.
Intended as an “applications journal,” it was substantially the successor to the old ARS journal Jet
Propulsion.
The first issue, volume 1, number 1, was issued in January–February 1964. Gordon L. Dugger was Editorin-Chief; Associate Editors were Robert Fischell, Herbert Goda, and Ralph Ragan. Ruth F. Bryans was
Managing Editor.
The origins of JSR and its mission were clearly established in the first paragraph of Dr. Dugger’s
introductory editorial:
The decision of the AIAA Board that additional journals should be published in 1964 resulted from
many deliberations over many proposals and committee reports, but at least three points were
recognized by all of the proposals: 1) a greater total publishing outlet was needed, so that no
original, significant paper would be turned away for the reason of inadequate publishing space; 2)
although the contributions of the “engineer” and the “scientist” are inescapably interwoven in the
great ventures of aeronautics and astronautics today, there had been a lingering tendency to look
down on “engineering” papers which described applications of new knowledge to such ventures,
and in fact, the 1963 outlet of AIAA for such papers had been inadequate; and 3) a large fraction
of the membership feared that the aeronautics of the American Institute of Aeronautics and
Astronautics was being overlooked. To fulfill these needs, this Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets
and its counterpart for aeronautics, the Journal of Aircraft, have been created. They are intended
to be full technical partners to the continuing, respected AIAA Journal—equal in quality, in value
to the portion of the AIAA membership each will serve, and in professional recognition among
authors and readers, Members and Corporate Members, and institutions and their libraries.
Although these new journals are not, at present, equal in size (or price) to the AIAA Journal, the
initial subscription response on the part of the members has already validated the wisdom of the
decision of the AIAA Board to establish them.
Dr. Dugger’s subsequent remarks also were relevant:
Each journal carries its scope statement on its inside front cover. It is unavoidable, and indeed it
is desirable, that there be some overlap among the three. Whereas AIAAJ will continue to
emphasize new research and exploratory developments of rather fundamental character, JSR and
JA will be primarily interested in significant applications and effects of such new knowledge in the
fields of astronautics and aeronautics, respectively. A gray area is bound to exist between JSR and
JA, and it is also certain to shift with time. An illustrative example is that (for the year 1964, at
least) papers dealing with aerospace planes should go into JSR, and papers on the X-15 should go
into JA.
It is significant that, although only minor changes have been made in the scope of JSR in these past
twenty years, it has, in fact, spun off at least two current journals—Journal of Propulsion and Power and
Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics. As each journal was proposed, careful analyses were made
of the impact of the new journal on the resource of papers for JSR and, in each instance, dire predictions
forecast severe impact on availability of papers and on subscriptions. Yet, in fact, neither occurred. The
backlog of papers remains stable, with little change since the elimination of the automatic submittal
procedure. Subscriptions, in fact, have improved a bit in the past year.
Thus it would appear that JSR fills a specific and continuing need in the community of aerospace-related
archival journals, and that it is assured of solid and loyal readership.
Journal of Thermophysics and Heat Transfer, by Alfred L. Crosbie and Kenell J. Touryan
The JTHT is the most recent AIAA journal, and that brings the total number of journals to six. It is
devoted to the advancement of the science and technology of thermophysics and heat transfer through
the dissemination of original research papers disclosing new technical knowledge and exploratory
developments and applications based on new knowledge. The journal publishes qualified papers that
deal with the properties and mechanisms involved in thermal energy transfer and storage in gases,
liquids, and solids or combinations thereof. These studies include conductive, convective, and radiative
modes alone or in combination and the effects of the environment.
The journal had its inception with the AIAA Thermophysics Technical Committee. In January 1983, the
TC members initiated a journal feasibility study. About the same time, the TC began a program to
increase the number of thermophysics papers in AIAA journals. It should be noted that, every year since
1965, the Thermophysics TC has organized one of the two major heat transfer conferences held in North
America, the AIAA Thermophysics Conference. From these meetings, papers have been published in the
AIAA Progress in Astronautics and Aeronautics book series, the AIAA Journal, and the Journal of
Spacecraft and Rockets. For example, from 1965 to 1985, 28 thermophysics volumes have been
published in the AIAA Progress Series. After detailed discussions with members of the Publications
Committee and the Editor-in-Chief of the Progress Series, in January 1985 the Thermophysics TC voted
to discontinue the thermophysics volumes and to pursue the establishment of a thermophysics journal.
During the summer of 1985, the TC voted overwhelmingly for a proposal to establish the new journal.
After due process, the Publications Committee approved the journal in October 1985, and final approval
was given by the Board of Directors in early 1986. The first issue of the journal appeared in January
1987. (For details, see the JTHT Schedule in the “Guidelines and Procedures for New Journals.”)
The new journal will encourage the drawing together of work from industry, government, and academia
and will be a full-spectrum publication in the field of thermophysics and heat transfer. Topics will
include aerothermodynamics, thermophysics properties, nonintrusive diagnostics, radiation, conductive
and convective heat transfer, and numerical heat transfer.
Journal of Energy, by William H. Heiser
The origin of the Journal of Energy (JE) was the oil embargo of 1973, which aroused the nation’s concern
for energy availability. The AIAA response to the “energy crisis” was the Energy Activities Task Force
(EATF), which sought aerospace initiatives to reduce energy dependency.
One of the few concrete results of the EATF was the JE, although the actual planning of the journal took
place in a Finance Committee meeting. The journal first appeared in January 1977, and was devoted to
energy research and development in accordance with its scope, as follows:
This Journal is an archival publication devoted to advancing our knowledge of the usage of energy
in space and on Earth, including its production, transformation, and conservation. The Journal is
expected to emphasize advanced technologies contained within the domains of aeronautics and
astronautics and their logical extensions. It shall include but not be limited to such terrestrial and
space applications as: chemical systems (combustion efficiency, alternate fuels, exploration and
recovery, hydrogen and other unique fuels); solar systems (photovoltaic power, solar thermal
power, wind power, ocean thermal energy conversion, biomass energy); nuclear fission systems;
nuclear fusion systems; power conversion (MHD, rotating machinery, reciprocating machinery,
thermoelectric, thermionic, power conditioning); storage and transmission systems (lasers,
batteries, fuel cells, flywheels, cryogenics, microwaves, fiber optics); energy conservation systems
(human factors); and geothermal, ocean wave, tidal, and hydroelectric power. Papers dealing
with applied science, systems performance and operations analysis, economic analysis, and
process development of the subjects listed above will be published.
Although the JE reached its expected potential as a bimonthly, a number of problems were encountered
during development which can be avoided in the future via good planning.
First, a decision to proceed was made in July 1976, at which point no papers were in the editorial
pipeline, and no sample issue could be generated for marketing and advertising during the critical fall
season. In fact, papers were taken from every available source in order to barely meet the January
Aerospace Sciences Meeting first-issue deadline. The process had the additional unfortunate effect of
depleting the supply of appropriate papers for subsequent issues of the JE.
Second, establishment of the JE preceded the existence of relevant, energy-related AIAA conferences.
This deprived the JE of the traditional, dependable, and usually predominant flow of technical papers,
and placed the burden instead on such erratic sources as over-the-transom, non-AIAA meetings, and
material sought or even prepared by JE editors.
Third, the JE had no strong connection to the mainstream of AIAA activities, but was really an
opportunistic if legitimate response to a national need. In particular, it was neither system nor discipline
oriented, but rather connected to a topical theme. This led to the demise of the JE in 1983 when oil
became plentiful again, prices declined, and federal funding of energy R&D dropped sharply. The supply
of papers diminished proportionately, and it was decided to terminate JE before a lingering death
began.
Despite this, the life cycle experienced by the JE did not harm the reputation of the family of AIAA
journals. In retrospect, it seems better to have tried to serve this need than to have let it pass. The
greater danger is holding on to a journal too long.
Journal of Hydronautics, by Donald M. Layton
The Journal of Hydronautics began publication in 1967 at the initiation of the Marine Systems TC. Prior
to the creation of the journal, the Marine Systems TC published supplements in the Journal of Aircraft.
The authorization to proceed with the new journal was based more on the optimistic anticipation of a
new, expanded discipline for the AIAA than on solid market information.
The scope of the journal was as follows:
This Journal is dedicated to the publication of significant, original papers which contribute to the
advancement of the science and engineering of all types of marine craft, installations, and
instrumentation devised to explore and make use of the oceans of the world. This Journal
presents qualified papers dealing with the hydromechanics of propulsion, the stability and control
of surface vessels and submersibles, and methods for providing mobility and habitation in water.
Ocean environmental characteristics, such as currents, acoustical properties, wave spectra,
density, and chemical and biological aspects, are also topics within the purview of this publication
insofar as they bear upon the design of bodies, structures, and instruments to be employed in the
seas. Papers are sought which describe the results of current research as well as those which
show how new experimental findings and rational mechanical analyses can be applied to the
solution of practical engineering problems in this field.
The journal was published until 1981 on a quarterly basis. In 1981, because of a lack of sufficient
papers, all remaining papers were put into one issue and published for the last time, although the
journal was in the black, the total member circulation was 650, and library subscriptions were 450
(down from a high of 600). The reasons for discontinuing the journal were twofold: 1) less than 200
AIAA members identified their primary interest as marine systems; 2) the journal lacked a strong
technical paper source. For example, the AIAA cosponsored a biannual Advanced Marine Vehicle
Conference. The total number of archival papers from these meetings was barely sufficient to fill four or
five quarterly issues. The AIAA Board, therefore, voted in 1981 to discontinue publication of the Journal
of Hydronautics.