Energy and Buildings Submission Guide

Source: Clarivate JCR 2024, Elsevier editorial disclosures (accessed April 2026).

Source: Energy and Buildings author guidelines.

Use this page when deciding:

• whether the building-energy contribution is substantive

• whether quantitative analysis is rigorous

• whether building physics support is appropriate

• a clear building-energy contribution

• rigorous quantitative analysis

• building physics support

• direct energy focus

• a cover letter establishing the contribution

• Incremental energy reports without novel contribution.

• Weak quantitative analysis.

• Missing building-energy relevance.

• General building research without energy focus.

Energy and Buildings is a flagship building-energy journal.

Building-energy focus standard: the journal differentiates from Building and Environment (broader) by demanding building-energy specific advances.

Quantitative-analysis expectation: editors expect rigorous energy analysis with performance metrics.

The 30-40% desk rejection rate: decisive editorial screen.

The strongest Energy and Buildings cover letters establish:

• the building-energy contribution

• the quantitative analysis

• the building physics support

• the central finding

Energy and Buildings requires these at first submission:

• editable manuscript source file (.docx or .tex, not PDF)

• cover letter establishing the building-energy contribution and quantitative analytical approach

• highlights file (3-5 bullet points, 85 characters each) naming the quantified energy or comfort improvement

• graphical abstract (recommended for whole-building or systems papers)

• CRediT author contribution statement with full author names and family names

• data availability statement covering measurement data, EnergyPlus / IDA-ICE / OpenStudio simulation input files, weather data, and occupant-behavior datasets

• declaration of competing interests

• ethics statement for any occupant-survey or human-subjects-in-buildings work (IRB approval, informed consent)

• suggested reviewers (independent of authors) with institutional affiliations

• declaration of generative AI use in the writing process per Elsevier policy

• for revised submissions, point-by-point reviewer response and marked-up manuscript

For Energy and Buildings submissions, the most common artifact-related issue is missing weather-file specification on simulation papers. Building-energy simulation results are heavily dependent on the weather file used (TMY3 vs AMY vs IWEC vs locally generated); papers that report simulation results without naming the weather file face routine major-revision requests on reproducibility before any technical critique begins.

Energy and Buildings manuscripts move through a four-stage editorial timeline shaped by the Editorial Office pre-check.

Day 0 to 5: Editorial Office pre-check and technical screen

All manuscripts are first pre-checked by the Editorial Office for scope fit, ethical issues, completeness of declarations, and basic format compliance. Out-of-scope and incomplete submissions are desk-rejected at this stage without Editor-in-Chief review.

Day 5 to 21: Editor-in-Chief or Associate Editor desk-screen

Pre-checked manuscripts are assigned to the Editor-in-Chief or an Associate Editor matched to the building-energy subfield (HVAC, building envelope, indoor environmental quality, occupant behavior, urban building energy, smart buildings, retrofit performance). The desk-screen assesses scope fit, novelty, and quantitative rigor. Pure HVAC component papers without building-scale context are routinely transferred to Applied Thermal Engineering or other Elsevier sister journals.

Week 4 to 8: External peer review

Manuscripts that pass desk-screen go to a minimum of two independent expert reviewers (single-blind format). Reviewer turnaround on whole-building simulation work is faster than on occupant-behavior work where the reviewer pool is broader but less specialized.

Week 8 to 16: Decision and revision rounds

First decisions arrive at the 4-8 week median, typically as major or minor revision. The Editor is responsible for the final decision. Revision cycles add 4-10 weeks. Authors may file a formal appeal per Elsevier's Appeal Policy (one appeal per submission, decision final).

• Is Energy and Buildings a good journal?

Before upload, run your manuscript through an Energy and Buildings analysis check.

This page handles the public submission rules; the draft still needs a journal-specific fit check. The review tells you whether your paper clears the Energy and Buildings fit check before upload, especially around incremental energy reports without novel contribution, weak quantitative analysis, and missing building-energy relevance. Paid Manusights reviews include a 60-day money-back guarantee, and we do not train models on submitted manuscripts.

Across building-energy manuscripts targeting Energy and Buildings, three patterns appear most often in desk-rejected submissions.

Manusights pre-submission pattern analysis shows many Energy and Buildings desk rejections trace to incremental energy reports. The same pattern analysis often finds these cases involve weak quantitative analysis. A related pattern is that these cases often arise from missing building-energy relevance.

Incremental energy reports without novel contribution

Energy and Buildings editors look for substantive advances. We observe submissions reporting routine optimization routinely desk-rejected.

Check incremental energy reports without novel contribution before submitting to Energy and Buildings →

Weak quantitative analysis

Editors expect rigorous energy analysis. We see manuscripts with thin quantitative analysis routinely returned.

Check weak quantitative analysis before submitting to Energy and Buildings →

Missing building-energy relevance

Energy and Buildings specifically expects building-energy focus. We find papers framed as general energy without building focus routinely declined. An Energy and Buildings analysis check can identify whether the package supports a submission.

Clarivate JCR 2024 bibliometric data places Energy and Buildings among top building-energy journals.

Check missing building energy relevance before submitting to Energy and Buildings →

In pre-submission diagnostic work for top building-energy journals, we consistently see four signals that distinguish strong submissions from weak ones. First, the contribution must be substantive. Second, quantitative analysis should be rigorous. Third, building physics support should be appropriate. Fourth, energy focus should be primary.

For Energy And Buildings-targeted manuscripts, the single most consistent feedback class we deliver in pre-submission diagnostics for Energy and Buildings is the descriptive-versus-analytical distinction. Editors expect quantitative energy analysis. Submissions framed as building case studies without quantitative analysis routinely receive "where is the analysis?" feedback.

For Energy And Buildings-targeted manuscripts, beyond the rubric checks, three pre-submission diagnostic patterns recur most often in the manuscripts we review for Energy and Buildings. First, manuscripts where the abstract reports performance without analytical contribution are flagged. Second, manuscripts where modeling lacks validation are flagged. Third, manuscripts that lack engagement with Energy and Buildings' recent issues are flagged.

The Energy and Buildings submissions we coach toward acceptance distinguish themselves on three operational behaviors. First, the cover letter quantifies the building-energy outcome (kWh/m²/yr, peak-load reduction, comfort-hours gained, retrofit payback) against a clearly named baseline in the opening paragraph. Second, the simulation methodology names the engine (EnergyPlus, IDA-ICE, OpenStudio, TRNSYS), the weather file, and the calibration approach explicitly, which Editors treat as table stakes for reproducibility.

Third, the recent-literature engagement section names at least three Energy and Buildings papers from the past 18 months on the adjacent building-energy question, demonstrating the author tracks the journal's evolving methodological standards.

Editorial triage at Energy and Buildings operates on limited time per manuscript. Editors typically scan abstract, introduction, methodology, and conclusions before deciding whether to invite reviewer engagement. We coach researchers to design abstract, introduction, and conclusions for fast assessment.

Beyond methodology and contribution, Energy and Buildings weights author-team authority within the building-energy subfield. Strong submissions reference Energy and Buildings' recent papers explicitly.

For Energy And Buildings-targeted manuscripts, beyond methodology and contribution, journals at this tier increasingly reward submissions that explicitly position the work within a specific subfield conversation rather than treating the literature as undifferentiated.

For Energy and Buildings specifically, three desk-rejection patterns recur in our pre-submission reviews. First, simulation papers without explicit weather-file specification or with weather files that do not match the climate of the building case study (TMY3 used for a building in a non-US climate, AMY missing, etc.), which Editors and reviewers treat as a missing prerequisite. Second, single-building case studies framed as generalizable findings without sensitivity analysis across building typology, occupancy schedule, or climate zone. Third, machine-learning-for-buildings submissions that report prediction accuracy without out-of-building or out-of-climate validation, which fail the generalization check.

Before any Energy and Buildings submission, we walk authors through a journal-specific pre-flight checklist that mirrors what the Editorial Office, Associate Editor, and reviewers will actually look for: the cover letter quantifies the building-energy outcome with a defined baseline in the opening paragraph; the highlights name the quantitative improvement; the simulation engine and weather file are explicitly named in the Methods;

any retrofit attribution uses a recognized measurement-and-verification protocol (IPMVP, ASHRAE 14, or equivalent); any occupant-behavior assumption is justified against measured-occupancy data; single-building results are accompanied by sensitivity analysis across building typology or climate zone; and the discussion engages at least two Energy and Buildings papers from the past 18 months on the adjacent building-energy question.