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

Energy operates the Elsevier handling editor + associate editor model. The handling editor reads the entire paper and evaluates system-level innovation, techno-economic viability, deployment feasibility, and Energy subspecialty routing across thermodynamics, energy systems, fuels, renewable energy, energy storage, and energy efficiency. Verify the current Editor-in-Chief on the journal's editorial-team page before quoting any name in a cover letter.

A handling editor at Energy typically handles 60 to 100 manuscripts per quarter and spends 30 to 60 minutes on the initial read; Energy handling editors are working academic energy researchers fitting Energy editorial work around their own laboratories.

Energy editorial culture is decisive: editors reject approximately 50 to 60 percent of submissions at the editorial screening stage based on the three explicit criteria (system-level innovation, techno-economic viability, deployment feasibility). Papers that pass the Energy handling editor desk screen have cleared the steepest filter in Elsevier general-energy publishing.

Before the paper reaches external reviewers, an Energy handling editor evaluates whether the system-level innovation, techno-economic viability, and deployment feasibility warrant Energy's editorial slots. About 50 to 60 percent of submissions are rejected at this editorial screening stage.

A desk rejection most often means the handling editor concluded that the work lacks system-level innovation (component-level work without system integration), techno-economic viability (energy technology without cost-effectiveness analysis), or deployment feasibility (lab-scale work without scaling considerations). Common cascades: Applied Energy for energy applications, Energy Conversion and Management for conversion, Journal of Energy Storage for storage, Renewable Energy for renewables.

An Energy manuscript moves through a multi-stage Elsevier editorial timeline:

• Day 0 to 3, Editorial Manager administrative processing: The Energy editorial office confirms files are complete: manuscript with figures embedded, Supporting Information with energy systems data plus techno-economic analysis plus deployment-feasibility framing, Elsevier template formatting, cover letter directed to the editor naming the system-level innovation, conflict-of-interest declarations, ethics-statement documentation, and data-availability statement.

• Days 1 to 7, technical check (language, scope, originality): At Energy, the technical check is where incomplete upload files, missing declarations, formatting issues, and originality concerns can stop progress before scientific handling. The stronger package also makes system-level data, cost assumptions, deployment context, and data-availability material easy to inspect so the handling editor can see that the manuscript is not only a component study.

• Days 3 to 21, Energy handling editor desk screen: The handling editor reads the paper and evaluates the three explicit Energy editorial criteria: system-level innovation, techno-economic viability, and deployment feasibility.

• Days 5 to 14, internal Elsevier Energy editorial discussion (parallel for ambiguous cases): In parallel with the handling editor's primary read, ambiguous-fit papers are discussed across the Elsevier Energy editorial team where peer handling editors weigh in on whether the paper would fit better at 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.

• Days 21 to 35, external reviewer recruitment: Energy handling editors typically invite 2 to 3 peer reviewers selected based on technical expertise and research area overlap. Reviewer recruitment typically takes 7 to 14 days.

• Days 21 to 56, active peer review (4 to 8 week first decision): Once 2 to 3 reviewers agree to review, the typical Energy peer-review cycle lasts 3 to 6 weeks per reviewer. Reviewers are asked to evaluate system-level innovation, techno-economic viability, deployment feasibility, and reproducibility.

• Day 56 onward, editorial synthesis and decision: After reports return, the handling editor synthesizes them. Total submission-to-acceptance commonly runs 4 to 8 months for successful papers.

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

• Rejection within 7 to 21 days: Energy handling editor desk rejection per the 50 to 60 percent figure.

• Still Under Review after 3 weeks: Strong signal. Paper passed the Energy handling editor desk screen.

• Still Under Review after 10 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 Energy authors during the active editorial window. The honest answer: no, 6 weeks at Under Review puts you in the normal middle of Energy's 4 to 8 week first-decision distribution. 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 9-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 Energy.

What you should NOT do during the 6-to-9-week window is email the editorial office. Energy handling editors are working academic energy researchers managing 60+ active papers per quarter; an inquiry at 6 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 Energy. Elsevier has explicit prohibitions on dual submission.

• Prepare a point-by-point response template for likely reviewer concerns: system-level innovation, techno-economic viability (anticipating requests for cost analysis), deployment feasibility (anticipating requests for scaling considerations), reproducibility.

• If you have related work submitted elsewhere or recently published, prepare disclosure language for when revisions are requested.

• Read recent Energy papers in your subfield to calibrate the current editorial bar.

If your Energy paper is rejected after review, the natural cascade depends on what the reviewers and handling editor cited:

Applied Energy is the natural Elsevier cascade for energy applications papers. Applied Energy uses Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager submission portal; editorial contact apen@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.

Energy Economics (Elsevier) is the Elsevier cascade for energy economics papers.

Nature Energy is the external Springer Nature top-tier energy cascade.

Joule (Cell Press) is the external Cell Press energy cascade.

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

Across Energy manuscripts, we have reviewed 50+ manuscripts targeting Energy, Applied Energy, Energy Conversion and Management, Renewable Energy, Journal of Energy Storage, and energy-systems journals. In our pre-submission review work across energy and applied-engineering venues, the clearest reviewed-path advantage came from submissions that made the system boundary, economic assumptions, and deployment context visible before reviewers reached the discussion. Energy is especially sensitive to manuscripts that sound broad but still behave like component-level studies.

Energy system-boundary gap in the first figures. In our pre-submission review work, we see manuscripts that present device, fuel, material, model, or conversion results without clearly stating the energy system in which the result matters. Editors and reviewers then debate whether the work belongs in Energy or a narrower conversion, fuels, thermal, materials, or storage venue. Stronger submissions make the system boundary visible in Figure 1, align the benchmark with that boundary, and state what changes at the system level if the finding is true.

Check whether your Energy system-boundary signal is visible →

Energy techno-economic evidence too soft for review. A second pattern is a manuscript that names cost, scale, efficiency, or deployment but leaves assumptions untraceable. Reviewers often ask for sensitivity analysis, baseline comparisons, operating-condition realism, or clearer cost inputs. The fix is not only to add one cost paragraph. Stronger submissions show the assumptions, uncertainty range, and practical operating context in the methods or supplementary files before review begins.

Check if your Energy techno-economic package is reviewer-ready →

Energy cascade route hidden in the critique. A third pattern is a paper that is rigorous but fits Applied Energy, Energy Conversion and Management, Journal of Energy Storage, Renewable Energy, Applied Thermal Engineering, or Fuel better than Energy. When reviewer comments praise technical execution but question system-level generality, authors should read that as a routing signal. Source limitation: our observations come from Manusights pre-submission and revision-support work, not from private Energy editorial records.

We do not train on private author files, and Manusights offers a 60-day money-back guarantee for eligible review orders when the service does not meet the stated scope.

Check your Energy cascade response plan →

This page was created from Elsevier's public Energy guide for authors at ScienceDirect author instructions, Elsevier Editorial Manager documentation (50 to 60 percent desk rejection rate at editorial screening, system-level innovation + techno-economic viability + deployment feasibility editorial criteria, 2 to 3 peer reviewers selected based on technical expertise and research area overlap), and Manusights pre-submission review experience with Energy-targeted manuscripts.

For the Elsevier energy landscape beyond Energy, see Applied Energy (energy applications), Energy Conversion and Management (conversion), Journal of Energy Storage (storage), Renewable Energy (renewable), Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews (energy reviews), Energy Economics (energy economics), 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 general energy with system-level innovation (Energy), top energy applications (Applied Energy), energy conversion (Energy Conversion and Management), energy storage (Journal of Energy Storage), renewable energy (Renewable Energy), energy reviews (Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews), energy economics (Energy Economics), top Nature Portfolio energy (Nature Energy), or Cell Press energy (Joule).

Reviewers at 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 all three editorial criteria (system-level innovation, techno-economic viability, deployment feasibility) accelerates revision rounds substantially.

For a pre-upload check of your manuscript against the Energy system-innovation-plus-techno-economic-plus-deployment bar before submission, our Energy pre-submission diagnostic flags the system-level and techno-economic weaknesses most likely to surface in the handling editor desk screen.

For authors waiting on the related status step, see the Applied Thermal Engineering Under Review status guide for portal interpretation, follow-up timing, and reviewer-risk preparation.