Aerospace Science and Technology

The editor is really amazing! The most peculiar one without a doubt. The first time I submitted: the editor refused, saying that the format was incorrect and asked me to submit according to the "Guide for Authors" template, and also told me that the PDF was too large. After compressing the PDF, I carefully compared it with the template on the website (which was not editable at all). After resubmitting the second time, the editor said, "You still haven't followed my instructions. If you really want to submit to AST, please follow my requirements." I was like, "What?" and he didn't even specify what the requirements were. Later, I carefully read the "Guide for Authors" for a long time and finally found in a corner that the title page and the main body of the article should be submitted separately (double-blind peer review). I suddenly realized this and made the necessary changes, and resubmitted. But they rejected me again, saying, "Don't submit the same manuscript every day, go submit to another journal" ... I want to ask, why did I bother to make the revisions if I wasn't going to submit it?

I'm really speechless. How can an editor of a journal not fairly evaluate academic manuscripts? What kind of editor is he? Instead of addressing the issue directly, he just plays games with people. The template PDF he provided didn't even have the title page and the main body separated, it's just a hypocritical act. When I submit to TAES, the EIC politely emails me telling me not to use terms like "Novel new" in the abstract, and after my revisions, it goes through the review process normally. This editor for AST is really inferior.

With the increase in impact factor and ranking, this journal has become the most popular journal in the aerospace field, second only to Progress. The number of submissions has surged, and the quality of articles has also gradually improved. However, the review process in some areas may be relatively slow (mainly due to issues with reviewers). It is hoped that all reviewers can submit their review comments earlier for the sake of their own papers being published as soon as possible. Apart from a slightly high self-citation rate, which the editor-in-chief should pay attention to controlling, everything else is flourishing. I wish AST (the journal) better and better.

My first article was rejected and then submitted to another journal. The review and acceptance process of my second article (for reference only) is as follows:
Received on 2 December 2021;
Revised on 7 January 2022;
Accepted on 6 February 2022;
There were a total of three reviewers, two minor revisions, and one had no comments for modification. The manuscript was handled by a young Chinese editor, and the speed was relatively fast.

I hope that my upcoming articles under review will be accepted smoothly, and I also wish all authors a successful submission.