Some journals explicitly expect academic association but it is rare
a lot of journals implicitly expect academic association
often though, including in technical engineering from my experience, it is not for people from industry to submit articles.
Basically..start by reading other articles in a journal you are interested in submitting to and getting a feel for how they work. Figure out what sections you will need to have, what prior work you can reference. Have you ever written something similar? Are you interested in publishing the model as a theoretical construction? If so, why does one not already exist? how confident are you in your math? Are you interested in publishing an implementation of the model?
It is worth noting that AIAA and arXiv are TOTALLY different beasts. arXiv is a pre-print repository, that is NOT a peer reviewed journal. On the other hand, AIAA publishes multiple journals with different specific areas. For AIAA, how
What is the value/relevance of the paepr? Not just...novelty...journals get hundreds of 'novel' submissions. What is the value of a model of drag in incompressible flow? can you cite others making that argument?
As someone who regularly reviews (although less now because I won't review paywalled articles anymore) a fair number of journal articles, the reason most get rejected is lack of adherence to field norms and poor writing. Norms aren't god, but they exist for a reason and speak to/provide evidence of credibility in what you are saying. Poor writing...well academic writing is HARD. everything you are doing contributes to building an argument and providing evidence for your key point. It has to be situated, claims have to be supported, references made, etc. There are many problems with academic publishing...and these issues can be applied in exclusionary ways, but they are generally useful. Often, people think that you need some crzy high minded writing for journal articles...you don't. What you are seeing is field norms operationalized. In a way it is a highly practical cargo cult. Each field has a ton of knowledge and needs a way to short hand all of it to their disciplinary peers.
Happy to answer more specific questions or similar off list if you want to get into specifics.
I want at the very least to just get my derivation and results reviewed. I hope to avoid minutia of academic formatting, diction, etc. before getting any reviews...
Honestly, it's a really simple idea with significant consequences (if correct, of course). I have written a full draft and it is no more than 3 pages. Basically all aerospace engineering undergrads get taught early on that airfoil drag is just zero in 2D incompressible and inviscid flows, unless you want to use complicated, empirical viscosity imitation or wake momentum thickness methods (e.g. XFOIL). So my theory if correct would be quite impactful because it is so relevant to what all aerospace undergrads are taught.
My theory asserts that there is an omission of physics that is fundamental to understanding airfoil lift and drag, and how they are physically coupled. In my theory, drag is calculated as naturally as lift is, unlike what is currently taught. Although I strongly believe the physics and derivation are correct, I would not be confident enough to submit it for review if the results didn't match so well with airfoil experimental data (NACA TR-824).
I basically want my theory disproven or validated by qualified people. After that, I don't mind conforming to whatever minutia towards publication.
> Basically all aerospace engineering undergrads get taught early on that airfoil drag is just zero in 2D incompressible and inviscid flows, [...]
Don't you need some adicional hypothesis, like that all the path integrals of the wind field are zero? Most of the easy part of the analysis of the lift in a wing assumes that air is inviscid (except for the initial generation of the vortex around the wing). [And if the speed is much smaller than the speed of sound, you can approximate that the fluid is incompressible.]
I am not sure what you are trying to say. Thin Airfoil Theory and Vortex Panel Methods all predict zero drag. XFOIL predicts drag by tacking on a wake momentum thickness method.
a lot of journals implicitly expect academic association
often though, including in technical engineering from my experience, it is not for people from industry to submit articles.
Basically..start by reading other articles in a journal you are interested in submitting to and getting a feel for how they work. Figure out what sections you will need to have, what prior work you can reference. Have you ever written something similar? Are you interested in publishing the model as a theoretical construction? If so, why does one not already exist? how confident are you in your math? Are you interested in publishing an implementation of the model?
It is worth noting that AIAA and arXiv are TOTALLY different beasts. arXiv is a pre-print repository, that is NOT a peer reviewed journal. On the other hand, AIAA publishes multiple journals with different specific areas. For AIAA, how
What is the value/relevance of the paepr? Not just...novelty...journals get hundreds of 'novel' submissions. What is the value of a model of drag in incompressible flow? can you cite others making that argument?
As someone who regularly reviews (although less now because I won't review paywalled articles anymore) a fair number of journal articles, the reason most get rejected is lack of adherence to field norms and poor writing. Norms aren't god, but they exist for a reason and speak to/provide evidence of credibility in what you are saying. Poor writing...well academic writing is HARD. everything you are doing contributes to building an argument and providing evidence for your key point. It has to be situated, claims have to be supported, references made, etc. There are many problems with academic publishing...and these issues can be applied in exclusionary ways, but they are generally useful. Often, people think that you need some crzy high minded writing for journal articles...you don't. What you are seeing is field norms operationalized. In a way it is a highly practical cargo cult. Each field has a ton of knowledge and needs a way to short hand all of it to their disciplinary peers.
Happy to answer more specific questions or similar off list if you want to get into specifics.