Energy Economics Submission Guide

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

Source: Energy Economics author guidelines.

Use this page when deciding:

• whether the empirical identification is credible
• whether the economic contribution is substantial
• whether policy relevance is direct

• a clear identification strategy or theoretical contribution
• substantial advance to energy or environmental economics literature
• comprehensive robustness checks
• direct policy relevance
• a cover letter establishing identification and contribution

• Weak identification strategy.
• Incremental economic contribution.
• Narrow regional studies without broader relevance.
• Engineering analysis without economic contribution.

Energy Economics is a flagship energy and environmental economics journal.

Identification + economics expectation: the journal differentiates from Energy Policy (more applied policy) and The Energy Journal (broader energy economics) by demanding both credible identification and substantial economic contribution.

Policy-relevance expectation: Energy Economics specifically serves energy and environmental policy communities.

The 50-60% desk rejection rate: decisive editorial screen.

The strongest Energy Economics cover letters establish:

• the identification strategy in one sentence
• the economic contribution
• the policy relevance
• the robustness scope

• Is Energy Economics a good journal?

Before upload, run your manuscript through an Energy Economics identification and contribution readiness check.

In our pre-submission review work with energy-economics manuscripts targeting Energy Economics, three patterns generate the most consistent desk rejections.

In our experience, roughly 35% of Energy Economics desk rejections trace to identification-strategy weakness. In our experience, roughly 25% involve incremental economic contributions. In our experience, roughly 20% arise from narrow regional scope without broader policy relevance.

• Identification-strategy weakness in empirical papers. Energy Economics editors expect credible causal identification, similar to top-tier economics journals. We observe submissions relying on observational variation without identification routinely desk-rejected.

• Incremental economic contributions. Editors expect substantial advances to energy or environmental economics literature. We see manuscripts reporting modest extensions of established findings routinely declined.

• Narrow regional studies without broader relevance. Energy Economics specifically expects broader policy or economic relevance. We find papers framed around one country or one electricity market without broader implications routinely redirected to specialty venues. An Energy Economics identification and contribution readiness check can identify whether the package supports a submission.

Clarivate JCR 2024 bibliometric data places Energy Economics among top energy-economics journals.

In pre-submission diagnostic work for top energy-economics journals, we consistently see four signals that distinguish strong submissions from weak ones. First, the identification strategy must be credible and visible in the abstract; submissions relying on observational variation without identification fail at desk screening. Second, the economic contribution must be substantial beyond established findings; modest extensions fit specialty journals better. Third, robustness should include comprehensive sensitivity analysis, alternative specifications, and placebo tests appropriate to the identification approach. Fourth, policy relevance should be articulated explicitly; Energy Economics serves energy and environmental policy communities, and submissions that don't connect to policy lose force.

The single most consistent feedback class we deliver in pre-submission diagnostics for Energy Economics is the identification framing distinction. Energy Economics editors expect identification at a level approaching top-tier economics journals. Submissions framed as "we estimate the relationship between X and Y in country Z" without articulating the identification approach routinely receive "where is the identification?" feedback during desk screening. We coach researchers to articulate the identification strategy in one phrase before drafting the abstract; if the one-phrase identification reduces to "we use panel data" or "we control for confounders," the strategy is structurally weak. If it reads like "we exploit the staggered rollout of carbon pricing across European jurisdictions" or "we use the discontinuity at policy threshold X," the identification is structurally credible. The same logic applies across applied-economics journals: editors are operating with limited slot inventory, and the submissions that get traction articulate the identification strategy before the substantive finding.

Beyond the rubric checks, three pre-submission diagnostic patterns recur most often in the manuscripts we review for Energy Economics. First, manuscripts where the abstract reports policy-applied analysis without identification framing are flagged at desk for insufficient economic rigor. We recommend the abstract's central sentences state the identification approach, the economic question, and the policy implication. Second, manuscripts where engineering analysis dominates economic analysis are flagged for scope mismatch. We recommend leading with the economic contribution and framing engineering details in service of the economic question. Third, manuscripts that lack engagement with Energy Economics' recent issues are at risk of being told the contribution doesn't fit the publication conversation.