How to Read and Not Read an AIAA Referee Report

AIAA editor Greg Blaisdell rejects our article New Theory of Flight with the following motivation:

• In view of the criticisms of the reviewer(s) your manuscript has been declined for publication in the AIAA Journal.
• Please carefully read the attached reviews. 
• Your paper is unusual in that it challenges our existing understanding of aerodynamics. 
• I believe the reviewers have treated your paper fairly and have given thoughtful, well-reasoned critiques of your paper. 

So what does then a careful reading of the report by Reviewer 2 show? First, the editor has followed the advice by Reviewer 2:

• Regrettably, it is my conclusion that publication of any of this material, in any form, would be highly retrogressive.

However, this conclusion does not fit with the rest of the 6 page report. In fact, the report gives substantial credit to our article as shown on

• Why Reject an Article with Interesting Accurate Results?:
• put their fingers accurately on many of the defects in the truncated versions of aerodynamic theory that are now current... explanations stimulated by interesting results from their Navier-Stokes code...computational experiments, which are three-dimensional as, of course, are real wings... computer code that is their basis for disputing the classical theory. This is their area of expertise, and it may be assumed that their description is accurate...the authors are correct that separation might be fundamentally different in 3D than in 2D...serious issues of substantial public interest are involved.

Instead the report contains a devastating critique of state-of-the-art aerodynamics education carried by AIAA as The World's Forum for Aerospace Leadership, as recorded on  

• Harsh Critique of AIAA by AIAA Journal Referee:
• lost profundity...no longer highly respected...many gaps...truncated version...glossed over...defects...proliferating literature...confuse students mislead the public...dumbing down...I wish it were possible to retract what has already been written.

Editor Blaisdell is now reading our rebuttal including this post. It will be interesting to see what a careful reading will bring out. Will the rejection resist our rebuttal? Stay tuned...