Research articles are sent to the editorial office. The article then undergoes the so-called "anonymous double reading" evaluation procedure. A specialist chosen by the Editorial Board and a specialist recommended by the coordinators of the issue evaluate the article (from which all references to the author and all elements likely to influence the evaluator have been removed) according to scientific criteria (appropriateness to the themes of the journal, originality of the subject treated, quality of the demonstration, relevance, readability of the text, etc.), within a maximum period of two months. The anonymous evaluation forms are sent to the authors for integration of the evaluators' remarks, and the Editorial Board makes the final decision on the acceptance or rejection of the proposed texts. There are four possible scenarios:
1. Acceptance without modification ;
2. Acceptance with minor changes;
3. Acceptance with major changes;
4. Rejection for publication.
The expert has a period of two months to evaluate the text which is sent to him/her via the journal's secretary. He/she will submit the evaluation form (accompanied, if necessary, by the text in which some of his/her remarks are inserted) duly completed to this same person. The journal's secretary sends the text to the Editorial Committee, which proceeds to a collective rereading of the text and the evaluation of the two experts.
In cases 2 and 3, after the author has received the evaluations, the article must be sent back to the journal within a maximum of two months, and amended according to the remarks of the evaluations. The article may be accompanied by a right of reply, allowing the author to clarify certain points, to justify the arguments put forward and to explain the corrections made. This right of reply is not intended to call the evaluations into question: it does, however, allow for an anonymous dialogue with the evaluators. In the event that the assessments do not agree (for example, one rejection and one acceptance), the Committee requires a third anonymous assessment.
The text may be rejected directly if it does not fit in with the editorial line of the journal (themes, disciplinary anchoring, scientific rigour, etc.) or when editorial standards prevent an evaluation as it stands (necessary language revisions, unclear text, non-compliance with recommendations to authors, etc.).
Any text that is rejected at any stage of the procedure can be resubmitted to the review and the content will be re-examined as if it had been received for the first time. However, it will first have to be rewritten to incorporate the recommendations made by the reviewers.
As this review is intended both to ensure the editorial quality of the journal and to help authors improve their work, reviewers are asked to be cordial, but rigorous, in their assessment. The journal reserves the right to refuse a review that does not respect the kindness expected of colleagues or to ask for clarification in order to complete a review that is too imprecise.
The estimated average time between submission of an article to the editorial office and its publication is 26 weeks.
The contents of the other sections are left to the discretion of the journal. They are reviewed by the Editorial Board, which may suggest improvements.
If you have any questions or comments, please contact the secretary or the journal's management via the journal's e-mail address: email@example.com
Nacelles. Past and Present of Aeronautics and Space.
Laboratoire FRAMESPA (UMR 5136) / Labex SMS
Université Toulouse - Jean Jaurès
5 allées Antonio Machado
31058 TOULOUSE Cedex 9
Title of the article reviewed:
Date paper received for review:
Date of return of the review:
We will send this anonymous review form to the author of the article, as well as the article itself if you have made comments directly in the text (highlighting and inserting anonymous comments).
Therefore, please do not sign the attached review form (and make the changes in Word so that your comments in the text are anonymous), as they will be sent to the author for him/her to make the requested changes. Remember that this review is both to ensure the editorial quality of the journal as well as to help writer improve their articles, so please be polite as well as thorough in your review. The journal has the right to refuse an evaluation that does not respect the benevolence expected between colleagues or to ask for clarifications in order to complete an evaluation that is too imprecise.
You have two months to review the submitted article. Please let us know as soon as possible if you are not able to meet this deadline.
Please return this completed form to: firstname.lastname@example.org
Please check only one box per line.
Originality of the article, contribution to knowledge
Relevance to the journal’s scope and editorial policy
Methodology, conceptual and theoretical framework
Quality of logical reasoning and writing, well-organised, clear demonstration
Critical apparatus, reliability of data, comparison and use of sources
Overall article quality
General comments on the article: (qualities and problems from a theoretical and methodological point of view, quality of form and content):
Comments for the author: (must be detailed and specific and help the author improve her/his paper)
Results of the review:
1. Accepted without modifications
2. Accepted with minor changes
3. Accepted with significant changes1
Please check only one box.
Would you agree to re-read the article after modifications? yes/no
Articles submitted to Nacelles must be original. The Editorial Board reserves the right to refuse an article whose content does not meet the criteria of originality.
The journal Nacelles is published in the context of open publishing and is published in open access, without publication or submission fees. The author grants the journal the non-exclusive right to use his/her contribution in print and digital form. The contract is available in the appendix.
The journal Nacelles applies a Creative Commons BY-NC-SA. 4.0. Any person is authorized to use these works by any means, in any format - to share, copy, reproduce, distribute, communicate, reuse or adapt -, under the following conditions only:
- BY: obligation to name the author, cite the sources and indicate if modifications have been made;
- NC: no commercial use;
- SA: obligation in the case of modification to distribute the work under the same conditions, i.e. with the same original CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 licence.
The journal allows the author to deposit the author and final version of the manuscript accepted for publication on open archive platforms (HAL) with the CC license of his/her choice, mentioning the URL of the article on OpenEdition Journals or of the journal.
The journal does not authorize the author to disseminate in open archives and on social and academic networks (such as ResearchGate or Academia) the PDF/editorial version in full text, only the first page, mentioning the URL of the article and of the document (author's version or final version of the manuscript accepted for publication) filed in HAL.
Plagiarism: article L335 2, modified by law n° 2007 1544 of 29 October 2007 - art. 41 JORF 30 October 2007. "Any edition of writings, musical composition, drawing, painting or any other production, printed or engraved in whole or in part, in disregard of the laws and regulations relating to the property of authors, is a counterfeit and any counterfeit is an offence. Counterfeiting in France of works published in France or abroad is punishable by three years' imprisonment and a fine of 300,000 euros.
The journal uses Compilatio.net software to check for plagiarism.
Right of short quotation: article 10.1 of the Berne Convention: "Quotations from a work already lawfully made available to the public are lawful, provided that they are in accordance with fair practice and to the extent justified by the purpose, including quotations from newspaper articles and periodicals in the form of press reviews.
For further information or questions, please contact the editorial staff.