Applied Energy 'Under Review': What Each Status Means and When to Expect a Decision
If your Applied Energy submission shows Under Review, here is what the Elsevier handling editor is doing during each stage and when to follow up.
While you wait
Waiting on Applied Energy? Get your next move ready.
The Applied Energy wait is out of your hands; the next move isn't. Scan your next manuscript free, or run this paper through the scan to see what reviewers typically push back on, so the revision response is ready when the decision lands.
Applied Energy review timeline: what the data shows
Time to first decision is the most actionable number. What happens after varies by manuscript and reviewer availability.
What shapes the timeline
- Use the publisher's current timing summary; do not assume a fixed desk-decision deadline.
- Editorial assignment, reviewer availability, topic, and revisions can all affect elapsed time.
- Revision and additional experiments can extend the timeline; the decision letter supplies the actual revision deadline.
What to do while waiting
- Track the record in the submission portal; a status label alone does not prove external review has begun.
- Follow the journal's status-inquiry guidance and any deadline in its correspondence.
- Prepare revision materials in parallel if you expect a revise-and-resubmit decision.
Acceptance-rate source check (October 21, 2026): Elsevier journal catalog reports 6% for Applied Energy's acceptance rate (source checked 2026-10-21). Publisher source. The catalog does not specify the reporting period or denominator, and the figure is not an individual manuscript probability.
Last reviewed: 2026-10-08.
Quick answer: If your Applied Energy submission shows "Under Review," elapsed time is the most reliable signal. Applied Energy has a 2025 Journal Impact Factor of 12.2 in the 2026 JCR release, and Elsevier's live journal page currently lists 1 day to first decision, 54 days to decision after review, 127 days to acceptance, and 11 days from acceptance to online publication (per the Applied Energy ScienceDirect journal page).
Desk rejection is still common because the journal focuses on applied energy systems, technology demonstration, decision models, and implementation relevance, not basic energy science alone.
What should Applied Energy authors check first?
For a second opinion before reviewers see your manuscript, run a Applied Energy submission readiness check.
Related Manusights pages: Applied Energy journal profile, Applied Energy submission guide, Applied Energy review time, and Applied Energy formatting requirements.
Submission portal and editorial contact: Applied Energy uses Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager submission portal. Editorial questions should reference the manuscript ID; apen@elsevier.com handles editorial-office inquiries. The Applied Energy guide for authors and Elsevier Editorial Manager status guidance cover the editorial workflow.
For broader status-tracking guidance, the Cell Press author status portal gives useful baseline patterns.
Editorial board detail: Verify the current Co Editors-in-Chief on the journal's editorial-team page before quoting any name in a submission cover letter or naming a handling editor in correspondence.
What does Elsevier do after an Applied Energy manuscript goes Under Review?
Applied Energy operates the Elsevier handling editor + associate editor model. The handling editor reads the entire paper and evaluates energy systems significance, techno-economic feasibility, scope fit, and Applied Energy subspecialty routing across renewable energy systems, energy storage, smart grids, energy efficiency, energy policy, and integrated energy systems. Applied Energy handling editors are working academic energy researchers fitting Applied Energy editorial work around their own laboratories.
Applied Energy editorial culture is decisive: desk decisions are fast, with scope problems surfacing within days. Scope fit is the most important pre-submission consideration. Papers that pass the Applied Energy handling editor desk screen have cleared the steepest filter in Elsevier energy publishing.
What does each Applied Energy status mean?
Status | What is happening | Typical duration |
|---|---|---|
Submitted | Elsevier Editorial Manager administrative processing | Not published |
Technical Check | Language, scope, originality (plagiarism check) screen | Not published |
With Editor | Elsevier handling editor evaluating scope fit + energy systems significance | Elsevier lists 1 day to first decision |
Editorial Discussion | Internal Elsevier Applied Energy editor consultation for ambiguous fit | Parallel; invisible to author |
Under Review | 2 to 3 reviewers invited under single-anonymized review | Elsevier lists 54 days to decision after review |
Required Reviews Complete | Handling editor synthesizing reports | Not published |
Decision Pending | Editor finalizing recommendation | Not published |
Decision Sent | Reject, R&R, or accept (Elsevier lists 127 days to acceptance) | Check email |
The handling editor desk screen
Before the paper reaches external reviewers, an Applied Energy handling editor evaluates whether the energy systems significance and techno-economic feasibility warrant Applied Energy's editorial slots. Elsevier does not publish a desk-rejection rate; its journal page lists 1 day to first decision, a figure that counts desk rejections, so most first decisions are made at the editor's screen.
A desk rejection most often means the handling editor concluded that the work has scope-fit issues (Applied Energy's scope is energy applications, not basic energy science), techno-economic feasibility gaps, or would fit better at a sister Elsevier energy journal (Energy for general energy research, Energy Conversion and Management for conversion, Journal of Energy Storage for storage). Scope misfit and framing problems drive most early rejections, not weak methodology.
Day 0 to 3: Elsevier Editorial Manager administrative processing
The Applied Energy editorial office confirms files are complete: manuscript with figures embedded, Supporting Information with energy systems data and techno-economic analysis, Elsevier template formatting, cover letter directed to the editor naming the energy systems contribution and techno-economic significance, conflict-of-interest declarations, ethics-statement documentation, and data-availability statement.
Days 1 to 7: Technical check (language, scope, originality)
For Applied Energy, the technical check is not just a file-completeness pause. Elsevier staff and automated checks look for readable English, complete figures and highlights, required declarations, originality concerns, and whether the manuscript looks like an applied energy-systems paper rather than a basic materials, chemistry, or physics study with an energy example attached.
Days 3 to 21: Applied Energy handling editor desk screen
The handling editor reads the paper and evaluates energy systems significance, techno-economic feasibility, scope fit (Applied Energy focuses on energy applications), and Applied Energy subspecialty routing.
Days 5 to 14: Internal Elsevier Applied Energy editorial discussion (parallel for ambiguous cases)
In parallel with the handling editor's primary read, ambiguous-fit papers are discussed across the Elsevier Applied Energy editorial team where peer handling editors weigh in on whether the paper would fit better at Applied Energy or at sister Elsevier energy journals. This editor consultation runs alongside the desk-screen and is invisible to the author in the portal.
Days 21 to 35: External reviewer recruitment
Applied Energy handling editors invite external reviewers with energy systems expertise. Reviewer recruitment typically takes 7 to 14 days.
Days 21 to 84: Active peer review
Once reviewers agree to review, the Applied Energy peer-review cycle follows the reviewers' schedule, which sets the journal's published decision-after-review time. Reviewers are asked to evaluate energy systems significance, techno-economic feasibility, methodology rigor, and reproducibility.
Day 84 onward: Editorial synthesis and decision
After reports return, the handling editor synthesizes them. The journal publishes median times for submission to acceptance and for acceptance to online publication on its ScienceDirect page.
When to worry about Applied Energy Under Review
- Early rejection: Technical check rejection (language, scope, originality) per Elsevier policy.
- Rejection before review: Applied Energy handling editor desk rejection.
- Still Under Review after 3 weeks: Strong signal. Paper passed the Applied Energy handling editor desk screen.
- Still Under Review after 12 weeks: Reviewer-recruitment or reviewer-report delay. A polite inquiry via the Editorial Manager portal is appropriate.
- Status changes to "Decision in Process": Reports are in and the editor is preparing the decision.
"My paper has been Under Review for 8 weeks. Is that bad?"
This is the most common anxiety we hear from Applied Energy authors during the active editorial window. The honest answer: no, 8 weeks at Under Review is within the normal range for a first decision after review. Reports may already be in editorial synthesis with the handling editor preparing the recommendation. Most reviewer-driven delays come from reviewer-recruitment timing for energy systems subspecialty experts rather than slow reviews.
If the portal still says Under Review at the 12-week mark, the most likely explanation is that one of the assigned reviewers asked for an extension and the handling editor granted it. This is normal practice at Applied Energy.
What you should NOT do during the 8-to-12-week window is email the editorial office. Applied Energy handling editors are working academic energy researchers; an inquiry at 8 weeks adds friction without accelerating the timeline.
Readiness check
While you wait on Applied Energy, scan your next manuscript.
The scan takes about 2 to 3 minutes. Use the result to decide whether to revise before the decision comes back.
What should you do while waiting?
- Do not email the editorial office during the first 6 weeks unless an urgent ethics issue surfaces.
- Do not submit the paper anywhere else while it is Under Review at Applied Energy. Elsevier has explicit prohibitions on dual submission.
- Prepare a point-by-point response template for likely reviewer concerns: energy systems significance, techno-economic feasibility (anticipating requests for cost-effectiveness analysis or deployment-feasibility framing), methodology rigor, reproducibility.
- If you have related work submitted elsewhere or recently published, prepare disclosure language for when revisions are requested.
- Read recent Applied Energy papers in your subfield to calibrate the current editorial bar.
If Applied Energy rejects: sister-journal cascade with reasoning
If your Applied Energy paper is rejected after review, the natural cascade depends on what the reviewers and handling editor cited:
Energy is the natural Elsevier general-energy cascade. Energy uses Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager submission portal; editorial contact egy@elsevier.com.
Energy Conversion and Management is the Elsevier cascade for energy conversion papers.
Journal of Energy Storage is the Elsevier cascade for energy storage papers.
Renewable Energy is the Elsevier cascade for renewable energy papers.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews is the Elsevier cascade for energy review articles.
Applied Catalysis B: Environment and Energy is the Elsevier cascade for catalysis-energy papers. Applied Catalysis B uses Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager submission portal; editorial contact apcatb@elsevier.com.
Nature Energy is the external Springer Nature top-tier energy cascade. The Nature Energy Manuscript Tracking System at mts-nenergy.nature.com handles submission; nenergy@nature.com handles publisher-level inquiries.
How Applied Energy compares to nearby alternatives
Feature | Applied Energy | Energy | Journal of Energy Storage | Nature Energy |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Desk-decision speed | Published on the journal's ScienceDirect page | Not listed | Not listed | Not listed |
Total review time (post-screen) | Published on the journal's ScienceDirect page | Not listed | Not listed | Not listed |
Reviewer count | 2 to 3 | 2 to 3 | 2 to 3 | 2 to 3 |
Peer-review model | Elsevier single-anonymized | Elsevier single-anonymized | Elsevier single-anonymized | Nature single-blind, optional transparency |
Editorial bar | Top energy applications + techno-economic feasibility | General energy research | Energy storage applications | Top-tier Nature Portfolio energy |
Submit if your paper passed the desk
If your Applied Energy paper is Under Review past 3 weeks, you have cleared the handling editor desk screen. Use the waiting window to prepare a thorough revision response template.
Applied Energy submission readiness check takes about 5 minutes.
Think Twice If
Applied Energy handling editors retain discretion to reject after partial review if reviewer reports surface methodology or techno-economic feasibility concerns the desk screen did not catch. Elsevier lists a 6% acceptance rate, and most post-desk-screen papers still receive a substantial-revision decision.
- The abstract frames the work as basic energy science rather than applied energy systems. Applied Energy explicitly covers research, innovation, development, demonstration, implementation, modelling, decision-making, and energy-system applications.
- The results section has performance metrics but no deployment or economic interpretation. Reviewers often ask whether the technology, model, or process would work under realistic operating, cost, grid, building, or industrial constraints.
- The highlights and graphical abstract do not explain the energy-system decision. Elsevier submissions depend on the highlights and graphical abstract for fast editorial triage, so they should name the decision, not just the method.
For a pre-upload diagnostic of energy systems significance framing and techno-economic feasibility, run a Applied Energy pre-submission diagnostic before reviewer reports surface those concerns.
The Applied Energy reviewer experience
Elsevier asks reviewers at Applied Energy to evaluate four things specifically. The table below maps each to actionable preparation.
Reviewer focus area | What Applied Energy asks reviewers to evaluate | How to prepare for it |
|---|---|---|
Energy systems significance | Does the work advance energy systems understanding beyond incremental contribution? | Frame the introduction around the energy systems principle the findings illuminate. Elsevier does not publish a desk-rejection rate; the screen selects for papers with clear energy systems applications. |
Techno-economic feasibility | Does the work include techno-economic analysis demonstrating practical deployment feasibility? | Include techno-economic analysis. Pure technology papers without techno-economic framing face lower priority at Applied Energy. |
Methodology rigor | Are the experimental or modeling methods appropriate, properly conducted, and rigorous? | Include detailed methodology documentation. Energy modeling assumptions, simulation parameters, and experimental validation are evaluated. |
Reproducibility | Could another team reproduce the central energy systems analysis with the methods and data as written? | Use detailed methods documentation. Applied Energy requires data-availability statements. Deposit raw data and code in public repositories. |
Applied Energy status inquiry checklist
Before contacting the Applied Energy editorial office, confirm all four points:
Check | Why it matters |
|---|---|
Six weeks have passed | Elsevier's live journal timing shows review-track decisions often take weeks, not days. |
The Editorial Manager ID is included | Elsevier can route the inquiry only if the manuscript record is clear. |
The inquiry is status-only | Do not use a timing message to reargue scope, novelty, or reviewer fit. |
The manuscript is not elsewhere | Elsevier journals do not allow simultaneous submission. |
What we see in Applied Energy manuscripts
Across Applied Energy manuscripts, we have reviewed 50+ manuscripts targeting Applied Energy, Energy, Renewable Energy, Journal of Energy Storage, and Nature Energy. In our pre-submission review work across applied energy and energy-systems journals, we see three recurring Applied Energy failure modes after the portal shows Under Review. These are not official Elsevier criteria; they are anonymized Manusights observations used to help authors prepare a cleaner revision package.
Source limitation: we rely on public Elsevier guidance, the live ScienceDirect journal page, and our internal pre-submission review work, and we do not have access to private Applied Energy editorial records.
Pure-technology framing without techno-economic analysis flagged at handling editor desk screen. When an Applied Energy manuscript presents energy technology without techno-economic analysis, deployment constraints, or system-level decision value, reviewer resistance is common. The strongest manuscripts connect the method, Figure 1, highlights, and discussion to practical implementation.
Check whether your Applied Energy systems claim is visible →
Scope misfit around basic energy science surfaces as a desk-screen or review concern. Applied Energy's scope emphasizes applied aspects of energy, including conversion, conservation, multi-energy systems, markets, buildings, storage, hydrogen, policy, and implementation. Papers framed mainly as basic mechanism or material discovery need a stronger applied energy decision layer.
Check if your Applied Energy techno-economic package is reviewer-ready →
Elsevier energy cascade offers from handling editor. When the handling editor concludes the work is rigorous but the energy applications priority bar of Applied Energy is not met, transfer offers to Energy, Energy Conversion and Management, Journal of Energy Storage, Renewable Energy, or Advances in Applied Energy are common. The best transfer packages preserve the data-availability statement, highlights, graphical abstract, and reviewer response logic.
Check your Applied Energy cascade response plan →
For Applied Energy specifically, these patterns come from Manusights pre-submission review work with energy-systems, storage, modelling, building-energy, and techno-economic manuscripts. They are not a claim of privileged access to Applied Energy editors or reviewers. Manusights uses uploaded manuscripts only to produce the requested review; we do not train on private author files. Authors using Manusights also have a 60-day money-back guarantee if the review is not useful.
Methodology note
This page draws on Elsevier's Journal Finder figures for Applied Energy, read October 2026, and Manusights pre-submission review experience with Applied Energy-targeted manuscripts.
What to read next
For the Elsevier energy landscape beyond Applied Energy, see Energy (general energy research), Energy Conversion and Management (conversion), Journal of Energy Storage (storage), Renewable Energy (renewable), Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews (energy reviews), Applied Catalysis B: Environment and Energy (catalysis-energy), and external top-tier energy alternatives (Nature Energy, Joule from Cell Press).
The choice across these titles depends on whether the central contribution is top energy applications with techno-economic feasibility (Applied Energy), general energy research (Energy), energy conversion (Energy Conversion and Management), energy storage (Journal of Energy Storage), renewable energy (Renewable Energy), energy reviews (Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews), catalysis-energy (Applied Catalysis B), top Nature Portfolio energy (Nature Energy), or Cell Press energy (Joule).
Reviewers at Applied Energy typically draw from 2 to 3 energy systems subspecialty experts under the Elsevier single-anonymized model. Editors screen and triage manuscripts before any reviewer sees them, and preparing a response template that addresses both energy systems significance and techno-economic feasibility accelerates revision rounds substantially.
For a pre-upload check of your manuscript against the Applied Energy energy-applications-plus-techno-economic bar before submission, our Applied Energy pre-submission diagnostic flags the scope and techno-economic weaknesses most likely to surface in the handling editor desk screen.
Frequently asked questions
Your manuscript has cleared Applied Energy Editorial Manager admin checks and is being evaluated. Applied Energy operates through Elsevier's Editorial Manager system and is highly selective, with a significant portion of rejections happening at the desk-rejection stage based on scope fit and manuscript framing rather than scientific merit.
Elsevier journal catalog reports 1 day for Applied Energy's submission to first decision (source checked 2026-10-21). This includes editorial decisions and is not external peer-review duration or a promise for one manuscript.
Wait at least 6 weeks before inquiring. Contact via the Applied Energy Editorial Manager portal at the official submission portal referencing your manuscript ID; apen@elsevier.com handles editorial-office inquiries.
No. Eight weeks is common for a first decision after review; compare it with the decision-after-review figure shown on the journal's ScienceDirect page. Reports may already be in editorial synthesis.
Your paper passed the Elsevier handling editor desk screen and 2 to 3 reviewers have been invited under single-anonymized review. Applied Energy is highly selective with scope misfit and framing problems driving most early rejections.
Yes. The journal's published decision-after-review figure plus revision rounds and the time to acceptance mean many papers take more than 60 days. Multiple revision rounds are common.
Past 12 weeks is the right moment for a polite inquiry. Past 16 weeks suggests a reviewer dropped out and the handling editor needs a replacement. Silence in the first 6 weeks is normal at Applied Energy.
Sources
Free guide
Waiting is not the same as being ignored, and there is a way to tell.
Reviewers usually get ten days. When it has been months, an appeal and a complaint are different instruments with different addresses, and only one of them fits a delay. This is which to use, and the wording that gets an answer.
Final step
Done interpreting the status? Put the wait to work.
The Applied Energy decision will arrive on the journal's clock. What you control is what's next: scan your next manuscript free, or run this paper through the scan so the likely reviewer pushback is mapped before the revision request lands.
Free scan, no card needed.
Target journal Applied Energy
Private API processing. Your manuscript is not used to train models.
Re-read the status guidePut the guidance to work
Turn a decision into a clear next step.
Use the practical response workflow when a manuscript needs revision, or the process guide when you need to understand what the editorial status means.
Where to go next
Start here
Same journal, next question
- Applied Energy Review Time: What Authors Can Actually Expect
- Applied Energy Submission Process: What Happens From Upload to First Decision
- How to Avoid Desk Rejection at Applied Energy
- Is Applied Energy a Good Journal? Scope, Reputation, and Fit
- Major Revision at Applied Energy: What It Means, Next Steps
- Applied Energy Impact Factor 2026: Ranking, Quartile & What It Means