progress-in-aerospace-sciences

name	progress-in-aerospace-sciences
description	Use when targeting Progress in Aerospace Sciences or deciding whether an aerospace review article fits this venue. Encodes the journal's fit as a review venue, the comprehensive-survey and synthesis bar, the not-primary-research scope, official-submission re-check, and desk-reject heuristics.

Progress in Aerospace Sciences (progress-in-aerospace-sciences)

Journal positioning

Progress in Aerospace Sciences is a leading archival review journal spanning aerospace science and engineering — aerodynamics, propulsion, structures, flight dynamics and control, and space systems. It publishes authoritative, comprehensive survey articles that synthesize the state of a field, organize what is known, and chart open problems; many articles are scoped or invited. The defining expectation is a scholarly review, not a primary-research result: the contribution is critical synthesis and perspective, not a new experiment, simulation, or theorem. A standard original-research manuscript — even an excellent one — is a poor fit and belongs in a primary-research aerospace journal. This skill is a fit / venue-selection / re-framing tool. It does not replace the journal's current official author guidelines. Before submitting, re-check the live Progress in Aerospace Sciences Guide for Authors.

When to trigger

• The author names Progress in Aerospace Sciences for a review or survey of an aerospace topic and wants a fit/framing check.
• A manuscript must be re-framed as a comprehensive, critical review rather than a primary-research report.
• The author is deciding whether their planned article is a review fit here versus a primary-research aerospace venue, and whether to seek a pre-submission scope/invite.
• The author needs the journal's review-synthesis bar and desk-reject heuristics.

Scope & topic fit

• Aerodynamics and fluid dynamics in aerospace: high-speed/hypersonic flows, flow control, aeroacoustics — reviewed comprehensively across the literature.
• Propulsion and energy: air-breathing and rocket propulsion, combustion, and emerging propulsion concepts, synthesized critically.
• Aerospace structures and materials: structural mechanics, fatigue, composites in airframes, and structural health monitoring as a reviewed field.
• Flight dynamics, guidance, navigation, and control: vehicle dynamics and autonomy surveyed across methods and applications.
• Space systems and astronautics: spacecraft systems, orbital mechanics, re-entry, and mission/technology trends.
• Cross-cutting and emerging aerospace topics (e.g., electrification, advanced air mobility, design methods) where a synthesizing review is timely.

Method & evidence bar

• The central object is a comprehensive, critical review that organizes a field — not original experiments, simulations, or proofs presented as the contribution.
• Coverage must be broad and current: the survey should represent the literature fairly, including competing approaches, and identify consensus and open questions.
• Synthesis must add value beyond a reference list: taxonomy, comparative analysis, unifying framework, and a forward-looking perspective.
• Any figures, tables, or data are organizing devices (comparisons, roadmaps, classifications) drawn from the surveyed literature, properly attributed.
• Scope must be well-bounded and justified; an over-broad or shallow survey, or a narrow one masquerading as comprehensive, is a weak fit.
• Citations must be accurate and representative; the review's authority rests on balanced, complete coverage.

Structure & house style

• Long-form review structure: framing introduction, thematically organized sections, comparative synthesis, open challenges, and outlook — re-check article types and any invitation/proposal process on the live guide.
• The introduction states the scope, why a review is timely, and what the survey contributes beyond existing reviews.
• Tables and schematic figures that compare methods, summarize trends, and map the field are central; original-data plots are generally not the point.
• Sectioning should let a reader navigate the field; depth and balance across subtopics matter more than novelty of any single result.
• A substantial, well-curated reference list is expected; supplementary material, if any, supports the survey rather than presenting new findings.

Official-submission checklist

• Before giving submission-ready advice, read ../../resources/source-basis.md and ../../resources/official-source-map.md; start from the Elsevier anchors, then cite the current Progress in Aerospace Sciences Guide for Authors page you checked.
• Search the live site for "Progress in Aerospace Sciences guide for authors" and follow the current Elsevier/Editorial Manager version.
• Re-check whether a pre-submission proposal or editor invitation is expected, and the accepted article types (review/survey).
• Re-check length, figure/table, and reference expectations for a long-form review.
• Confirm permissions for any reproduced figures and the data/citation-accuracy expectations.
• Re-check competing-interests, funding, author-contribution (CRediT), and AI-use disclosure requirements.
• If the live official instructions conflict with this skill, the official instructions win.

Pre-submission self-check

• The manuscript is a comprehensive, critical review — not primary research presented as a survey.
• Scope is well-bounded, justified, and timely relative to existing reviews.
• Coverage is broad, current, and balanced across competing approaches.
• The synthesis adds a taxonomy, comparison, or framework beyond a reference list, with a forward outlook.
• Tables/figures organize and compare the literature and are properly attributed.
• Any pre-submission proposal/invitation expectation and the review article type have been checked on the live guide.

Common desk-reject triggers

• A primary-research manuscript (new experiment, simulation, or theorem) submitted as if it were a review.
• A narrow or shallow survey that does not comprehensively cover the field.
• A reference-list-style review with no synthesis, taxonomy, or critical perspective.
• Unbalanced coverage that omits competing approaches or recent literature.
• Scope creep or an ill-defined topic that cannot be reviewed authoritatively.
• Submitting without checking whether a proposal/invitation is expected for the topic.

Re-routing decision

• Primary aerospace fluid-dynamics research with new physics → journal-of-fluid-mechanics.
• Primary aerospace-structures/materials research (composites) → composites-part-b-engineering.
• Primary flight-control theory with provable guarantees → ieee-transactions-on-automatic-control.
• Primary metallurgy/materials research for aerospace alloys → acta-materialia.
• Highest-impact broad-audience review or perspective → a flagship multidisciplinary review/perspective venue (e.g., science-advances for primary advances).

Output format

[Fit] High / Medium / Low (one-line reason)
[Target] Progress in Aerospace Sciences
[Topic tags] <2–3 closest aerospace subtopics>
[Review scope] <the bounded field surveyed and why it is timely, in one line>
[Synthesis value] <taxonomy / comparison / framework / outlook the review adds>
[Top risk] <the single most likely reason for rejection — usually "this is primary research">
[Official items to re-check] <proposal/invitation / article type / length / permissions / disclosures>
[Re-route suggestion] <if it is primary research, a better-matched venue>