• While uploading articles, a similarity report is requested from the authors. The similarity rate of this report is reviewed by the editor and its suitability is confirmed (Similarity rate should be below 15%).
  • It is checked whether the candidate article is arranged according to the journal writing guide.
  • The candidate article is considered for the scope of the journal, its scientific originality, its relevance to the subject areas, and its up-to-dateness.
  • For Turkish articles, an extended English abstract is required.
  • It is considered whether the necessary files of the articles (Copyright Transfer Form, Ethical Declaration Form, Originality Report, Title Page, and Anonymous Master File) are uploaded in a complete and correct format.


During the editorial pre-review process, the articles submitted to the Aerospace Research Letters are considered by the Editor/Assistant Editor in terms of the journal's publication rules, scope, and similarity rate, and it is checked whether the files that need to be uploaded are uploaded. Similarity reports of all articles sent to Aerospace Research Letters are considered. In Aerospace Research Letters, the maximum similarity rate is accepted as 15%. If deemed necessary, Editors/Assistant Editors can obtain a similarity rate report on the relevant work again. After the Editor/Assistant Editors make their final decision about the study in the light of the similarity rate report of each study, they share this report and decision with the author(s) when necessary. Mistakes in the report may be requested to be corrected by the author(s) or the work may be returned to the authors. In addition, in the preliminary review process, the introduction, method, results, and discussion parts of the articles are considered by the Editors / Assistant Editors in terms of compliance with the scope and objectives of the journal. A Spelling Rule Control Supervisor is appointed to review the form of the articles, and a Language Control Supervisor is appointed to make an evaluation in terms of academic writing in English and Turkish. Suggestions from the spelling rule controller and language editor are re-considered by the Editor/Assistant Editors. As a result of the preliminary consideration, articles that do not comply with the journal's publication and spelling rules and the scope of the journal, inaccurate or inauthentic articles are rejected without being accepted for referee consideration. As a result of the preliminary considerations, a Field Editor is appointed to the articles that are deemed suitable for the publication principles of the journal by the Editor/Assistant Editors. Field Editors analyze the articles in terms of their contribution to the relevant field and send them to the referees for scientific evaluation.


In the figure analysis, it is considered whether the candidate article sent to the journal is in accordance with the journal spelling rules and template. Studies that do not comply with the spelling rules and template of the journal will not be considered and will be returned to the author(s) for rearrangement. The author(s) are required to re-upload their articles to the journal after making the edits within a maximum of 15 days. Accordingly, the author(s) should review the spelling rules and sample template file before uploading their work to the journal. Candidate articles that are not found to be adequate (appropriate) as a result of the figure review may be Rejected or Correction requested. For the candidate articles that are not sufficient in the figure review, if they are not rejected due to their scope, the authors can apply again.


Candidate articles are analyzed by the Aerospace Research Letters Language Control Officer in terms of academic writing in English and Turkish. The language analysis result of the candidate article is sent to the authors with the Language Analysis Report. Candidate articles that are not found satisfactory as a result of the language analysis may be "Rejected" or "Correction" requested.


Studies that pass the pre-review process are forwarded to 2 referees who are experts in their fields to be determined by the Editor/Assistant Editor or Field Editors, depending on the nature of the study. The readers inform the editorial board whether they can review the study within 15 days at the latest after the article is sent to them. If the reader does not notify within the specified time, a new reader is appointed to the study. Appointed readers cannot share any documents or details about the candidate article they have reviewed with anyone. Readers participating in the Aerospace Research Letters's readers pool are deemed to have given a guarantee in this regard.

In the evaluation process of Aerospace Research Letters, the "Blind Reading Method" is applied. The Blind Reading Method is essential for the objective review of scientific studies and is preferred by many scientific journals to ensure that scientific publications are produced of the highest quality. Reader opinions are the main determinant of the publication quality of Aerospace Research Letters. Studies submitted to the Aerospace Research Letters and which are determined to be appropriate as a result of the preliminary examinations are examined with the Double-Blind Reading Method. Double-blind reading means hiding both the identities of the readers from the authors and the identities of the authors from the readers. All articles are evaluated by at least two readers during the review process. The time given to the readers for the reader review process is 15 days. Readers can check the corrections of a study and decide whether it is appropriate or request more than one correction if necessary. When corrections are requested by the readers, the authors make the corrections within 30 days at the latest and submit their work to the journal via the same system. The corrected work is re-analyzed by the readers who request changes or corrections when necessary. In case one of the readers gives a negative opinion and the other a positive opinion, the Journal Publication Commission may decide to appoint a third reader for the article/having the editor's opinion or return the article to the author by examining the reader reports. In order for the article to be published, at least two readers must give a positive opinion.


It is based on reader evaluations of studies in general;

  • Uniqueness
  • The issue and purpose of the candidate article
  • Importance of the subject
  • Compliance of the subject with the publication policy of the journal
  • Contribution of the article to the field
  • Organization of the candidate article
  • Method
  • Contribution of findings to the field
  • Discussion
  • Conclusion
  • Consistent presentation of results
  • The Resource link and the appropriateness of the citations in the text
  • Resources
  • Compliance with ethical rules

The referees evaluate the studies using the online "Reviewer Evaluation Form". In addition, if the referees deem it necessary, they can also forward the notes stating their suggestions and opinions on the full text to the Editor/Assistant Editors or Field Editors. The referees evaluate the studies using the online "Reviewer Evaluation Form". In addition, if the referees deem it necessary, they can also forward the notes stating their suggestions and opinions on the full text to the Editor/Assistant Editors or Field Editors.

The reviewer can express their opinions in 4 ways regarding the studies:

  • Publication is acceptable
  • Acceptable for publication after corrections
  • I would like to see it again after the corrections
  • Cannot be published (Rejection)



Stances from the readers are reviewed by the Editor/Assistant Editors or field editors within 15 days at the latest. As a result of this review, it conveys its final decision to the author(s).



The right to object to the evaluation results of the author(s) in the Aerospace Research Letters is reserved. The author(s) should send it to [email protected] by e-mail within 15 days after the decision is sent to them by referring to the stances and comments within the scope of the evaluation results and upload them from the Journal system. Objections made are reviewed by the Editorial Board within 1 month at the latest. A field expert referee is appointed regarding the objections made by the author(s). The subject is first reviewed by the reader, then a final evaluation is made with the opinions of the other readers and the result is reported to the author(s).



During the preparation process for publication, a "Proof Reader" is assigned for the final evaluation of the candidate article. The article is evaluated for the last time by the last reader in terms of form, and if there are deficiencies in the article, it is sent to the author to make adjustments and correct the deficiencies. After the editing of the candidate article is completed, the “Layer” is appointed. The layout designer evaluates the article for compliance with the journal template and brings the article to the publication stage. The layout of the candidate article is published in preview for publication in the earliest issue of the journal.



Articles accepted for publication are published online first in order of acceptance date. During the online first, authors are required to review their manuscripts and submit suggestions for revisions in terms of journal spelling rules and layout to the editorial board. No changes can be made to the articles after the journal is published.

index index index