Applied Energy 'Under Review': What Each Status Means and When to Expect a Decision

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. A handling editor at Applied Energy typically handles 80 to 150 manuscripts per quarter and spends 30 to 60 minutes on the initial read; 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. The 50 percent desk rejection rate makes scope fit 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.

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. About 50 percent of submissions are desk-rejected at this stage.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 adds 3 to 5 days to the timeline that is invisible to the author in the portal.

Applied Energy handling editors typically invite 2 to 3 reviewers with energy systems expertise. Reviewer recruitment typically takes 7 to 14 days.

Once 2 to 3 reviewers agree to review, the typical Applied Energy peer-review cycle lasts 4 to 8 weeks per reviewer, contributing to the 56-day decision-after-review median. Reviewers are asked to evaluate energy systems significance, techno-economic feasibility, methodology rigor, and reproducibility.

After reports return, the handling editor synthesizes them. Total submission-to-acceptance commonly runs 130 days median for successful papers (10 days from acceptance to online publication).

• Rejection within 1 to 7 days: Technical check rejection (language, scope, originality) per Elsevier policy.

• Rejection within 7 to 21 days: Applied Energy handling editor desk rejection per the 50 percent figure.

• 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; expect a decision within 2 to 3 weeks.

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 puts you right at Applied Energy's 56-day decision-after-review median. 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 managing 80+ active papers per quarter; an inquiry at 8 weeks adds friction without accelerating the timeline.

• 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 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.

Elsevier asks reviewers at Applied Energy to evaluate four things specifically. The table below maps each to actionable preparation.

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.

Check your Applied Energy systems-readiness package

This page was created from Elsevier's public Applied Energy guide for authors at ScienceDirect author instructions, the Applied Energy ScienceDirect journal page (11.0 citation metrics, 20.1 CiteScore, 1 day to first decision, 54 days to decision after review, 127 days to acceptance, 11 days from acceptance to online publication), Elsevier Editorial Manager documentation, and Manusights pre-submission review experience with Applied Energy-targeted manuscripts.

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.