Energy Formatting Requirements: Complete Author Guide

Energy follows the standard Elsevier abstract format.

For energy research specifically, the abstract needs to state the energy system or technology studied, the method (experimental, simulation, optimization, policy analysis), and the primary quantitative outcome. Reviewers expect numbers: don't say "improved efficiency" when you can say "47.3% exergy efficiency, a 12% improvement over the baseline system."

Keywords at Energy are particularly important for routing. The journal spans engineering, physics, economics, and policy. If your paper is a techno-economic analysis of hydrogen production, keywords like "techno-economic analysis," "green hydrogen," and "levelized cost" help the editor assign appropriate reviewers. Vague keywords like "energy" or "analysis" provide no value.

Energy follows Elsevier's standard figure guidelines with discipline-specific expectations.

Figure specifications:

Discipline-specific expectations:

Energy system diagrams (process flow diagrams, system schematics) should follow engineering drawing conventions. Components should be clearly labeled with standard symbols. Stream numbers or labels should be consistent with any accompanying mass/energy balance tables.

For optimization results, contour plots and Pareto front visualizations should include clear axis labels with units. 3D surface plots need rotation angles chosen to show the most informative view, not just the default.

Sankey diagrams are increasingly common in Energy papers for showing energy flows and losses. They should be generated with proper software (e.g., e!Sankey, matplotlib/plotly) rather than hand-drawn, and the widths should be proportional to the actual flow quantities.

Tables:

• Editable format, not images

• Title above, footnotes below

• Sequential numbering

• Horizontal rules only

• Units clearly specified in column headers

Highlights are mandatory at Energy and follow the standard Elsevier format.

• Count: 3 to 5 bullet points

• Character limit: 85 characters per highlight, including spaces

• Submission: Separate file upload

• Content: Specific, quantitative findings

For energy research, effective highlights state the system, the finding, and the number.

Bad highlight (94 characters): "A comprehensive analysis of various renewable energy integration strategies was carried out"

Good highlight (79 characters): "Hybrid solar-wind system achieved 99.7% reliability at 23% lower LCOE"

The 85-character limit is enforced by the submission system. Spending time crafting sharp highlights before submission is worth it because they appear prominently in ScienceDirect search results and determine whether readers click on your paper.

Energy uses the Elsevier numbered reference system.

In-text citations: Square brackets [1], [2,3], [4-7]. Numbered by first appearance.

Reference list format (worked example with the ISO-4 abbreviation, bold volume, and year the elsarticle-num style applies):

[1] A.B. Author, C.D. Author, Title of article, *Energy* **289** (2026) 129876.

Key formatting details:

• Initials before surname

• Commas between authors

• Journal names abbreviated per ISO 4

• Volume bold

• DOIs recommended

• For references with more than 6 authors, first 6 then "et al."

Energy papers frequently cite technical reports, government publications, and international energy agency data. For these:

• IEA reports: Include the full report title, year, and URL

• DOE technical reports: Include the report number

• Standards (ISO, ASHRAE): Include the standard number and year

• Conference proceedings: Include full conference name, location, and year

There's no strict reference cap. Research Articles typically cite 40 to 60 references, but data-driven review-style analyses may cite more.

Energy supports supplementary material on ScienceDirect.

Common supplementary content:

• Detailed mathematical model derivations

• Extended optimization results (parameter sweeps, sensitivity analyses)

• Input data tables for simulation studies

• Additional system configurations and operating scenarios

• Experimental calibration data

Formatting:

• Single PDF when possible

• Fig. S1, Table S1 numbering

• Each item cited in main text

• Maximum 50 MB per file

For modeling and simulation papers, reviewers increasingly expect supplementary material that enables reproducibility. This means providing model input parameters, boundary conditions, and configuration details that don't fit in the main text. Simply writing "parameters are available on request" isn't sufficient anymore.

Data deposition in Mendeley Data or domain-specific repositories is encouraged, with the DOI referenced in a data availability statement.

Details specific to Energy:

Nomenclature section is expected. Energy papers are typically symbol-heavy. A Nomenclature section after the abstract (before the Introduction) listing all symbols, Greek letters, subscripts, superscripts, and abbreviations is standard practice. While not formally required, omitting it for a paper with more than 10 symbols will almost certainly draw a reviewer comment.

Units must follow SI conventions strictly. Energy uses SI units throughout. Report energy in kJ or MJ, power in kW or MW, pressure in kPa or MPa, temperature in K or Celsius. Don't mix unit systems. The one common exception: some energy economics papers use BTU or barrels of oil equivalent for market comparisons.

CRediT author statement is mandatory. Standard Elsevier requirement, enforced at submission.

Declaration of competing interests. Required for all manuscripts, including a statement even when no conflicts exist.

Energy has a strict novelty standard. The journal's high rejection rate (approximately 85%) means that novelty must be established clearly in the Introduction. Formatting-wise, a dedicated paragraph stating "The novel contributions of this work are..." is common and appreciated by editors and reviewers.

Model validation is expected. For simulation and modeling papers, a validation section comparing model predictions to experimental data or established benchmarks is expected in the main text, not the supplementary material. Reviewers consider this essential content.

Country-specific energy data needs sourcing. If your paper uses energy consumption, generation, or price data for a specific country or region, cite the primary source (national energy agency, IEA, World Bank). Don't cite secondary sources that compiled the data from the original.

For manuscripts targeting Energy, four patterns generate the most consistent desk-rejection outcomes.

Highlights missing or incorrectly formatted. Energy is an Elsevier journal requiring 3-5 bullet highlights, each no longer than 85 characters including spaces, submitted as a separate text field in Editorial Manager. Papers without highlights or with bullets exceeding the character limit are returned administratively before peer review begins. This is the most common procedural failure at this journal.

Study is device-level characterization without system-level integration or policy context. Energy publishes energy systems research with emphasis on full-system analysis, economics, and policy relevance. Papers limited to laboratory-scale device characterization (solar cell efficiency measurements, battery capacity tests) without system integration modeling, economic analysis, or life cycle framing are desk-rejected for scope. The journal distinguishes itself from Applied Energy primarily by breadth: Energy covers fossil, nuclear, and renewable energy systems equally.

Novelty is incremental optimization on a known configuration. Like Applied Energy, Energy editors assess whether submissions advance the state of knowledge rather than optimize known systems by marginal amounts. Papers reporting a 3-8% improvement to an established energy conversion configuration without a new concept, material, or analytical framework are considered incremental and declined at triage.

In Manusights reviews, the tell is usually in the introduction and the methods: the novelty paragraph restates the result rather than naming a capability, and the model-validation section benchmarks against an outdated baseline instead of the current state of the art.

Graphical abstract absent or wrong Elsevier dimensions. A graphical abstract (531 x 1328 pixels minimum, single panel) is expected for all Energy submissions. Missing graphical abstracts or images adapted from ACS-format TOC graphics cause administrative return through Editorial Manager.

In our review work we check this against the same components Editorial Manager screens at submission: the abstract length, the figures and their resolution, the methods and model-validation section, the references and data-availability statement, and the supplementary file size, because a single missing item in that list sends the manuscript back before the science is read.

A Energy submission readiness check evaluates manuscript scope, Elsevier formatting compliance, and novelty framing against these desk-rejection patterns.