l'aéronautique, le spatial, les choses de l'air et du vide, et leurs environnements au prise des SHS


Review Guidelines

Introductory note

Founded in 2016, the journal Nacelles. Past and Present of Aeronautics and Space seeks to bring together research in the humanities and social sciences on topics related to the history of aeronautics and space in an international and long-term perspective. Thus, its Editorial Board has established a rigorous evaluation process for each submission. Reviews will be done independently by two researchers who are specialists in the field, one specialist selected by the Editorial Committee and one specialist recommended by the issue coordinators.

Procedure and review form

The research article, which will be made fully anonymous by its author, must be sent to the editorial assistant at the journal’s email address The article will then be sent by the assistant to two specialists who will review the submission within two months maximum, based on its originality, scholarly quality and relevance.

Nevertheless, the submission can be directly refused by the assistant if it does not fall within the scope and aims of the journal (subject, discipline, quality of research, etc.) or when the writing or submission standards prevent a review (necessary language revisions, unclear text, failure to follow submission guidelines, etc.).

A review form (see attached document) is sent to the reviewers to help standardize the procedure and apply the same criteria to all submissions. The reviewers give an opinion on publication, basing that opinion on the qualities and defects of the article, and make suggestions for changes, additions, and/or relevant theories to be considered.

Any submission that has been rejected at any stage of the process may be resubmitted to the journal, which will then review the article again as if it were for the first time. That said, it must first have been rewritten to incorporate the recommendations made by the reviewers.

The purpose of this review process is both to ensure the editorial quality of the journal as well as to help writers improve their texts. Therefore, we ask reviews to be respectful and polite, while rigorous in their 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.


The reviewer has a period of two months to review the article after having received it from the editorial assistant. The completed review scorecard (along with the article itself if the reviewer has inserted remarks or made changes to the text) should be returned to the editorial assistant. The assistant then sends the article and reviews to the Editorial Board, which reads the text and both reviews collectively.

Based on the reviewers’ report, the Editorial Board may decide to accept the text as is, to request minor changes (giving the authors one month to revise), significant changes (maximum two months to revise) or to reject the text. In all cases, the editorial board will be the final judge.

The authors then receive a report of the review to inform them of the decision taken by the editorial board. This is accompanied by all or part of the review forms filled out by the reviewers. They have a period of one to two months to resubmit their revised article to the editorial assistant. The article may be accompanied by a right of reply, allowing the author to clarify certain points, to justify the arguments and to explain the corrections made. This right of reply is not intended to question the evaluations: on the contrary, it allows for an anonymous exchange with the evaluators.

For any questions or comments, please contact the journal’s assistant or the Editorial Board via email: