Computational fluid dynamics was used to study the flow through a scaled, mixed-compression, high-speed inlet with a rotating cowl at Mach 4.0 conditions. First, steady Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes computations were undertaken with a range of popular turbulence models including the Spalart-Allmaras model, the realizable k-ε model, the cubic k-ε model, and the Menter shear stress transport (SST) model to assess the impact on the inlet operating state. It was found that two models, the Spalart-Allmaras model and the Menter SST model, predicted the inlet to become unstarted at a cowl angle where the experimental data indicated the inlet remained started. Next, steady-state flow structures were studied at three discrete cowl positions, identifying highly three-dimensional flow features including regions of separated flow and spanwise gradients that became stronger as the cowl opened. Finally, the study culminated with the development of the new transient model, which allowed for time-accurate investigation into the unstart, restart, and hysteresis. The evolution of the separation bubbles was shown to be a major factor in the hysteresis, causing the inlet to restart at an angle different from where it unstarted. The utility of unsteady Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes computations to capture the complex time-dependent details of such flows was demonstrated.
Peer review is an essential part of academic publishing, yet many authors, reviewers, and editors have reportedly encountered problems with the review process. Some scholars view peer-review as a necessary process for the advancement of science, while other scholars argue that for many publishers and journals, both authors and reviewers are being exploited. The aim of this commentary is two-fold. First, to provide a narrative review of current perspectives and available research on the peer-review process to date, and second, to summarise potential solutions elicited from scholars on Twitter. A review of the literature identified several problems with peer-review including publication delays, an over reliance on a narrow pool of reviewers, threats to anonymity, perceived exploitation, as well as overworked editors. Recommendations to redress these issues that emerged from scholars on Twitter suggested publishers, journals, their editors and associate editors, universities, individual academics and their communities all have a role to play towards creating an equitable and fair system. This commentary aims to ignite conversations about improving the peer-review process.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.