Energy 'Under Review': What Each Status Means and When to Expect a Decision
If your Energy (Elsevier) submission shows Under Review, here is what each status means, how long each stage typically takes, and when to follow up.
What to do next
Already submitted to Energy? Use this page to interpret the status and choose the next step.
The useful next step is understanding what the status usually means at Energy, how long the wait normally runs, and when a follow-up is actually reasonable.
Energy review timeline: what the data shows
Time to first decision is the most actionable number. What happens after varies by manuscript and reviewer availability.
What shapes the timeline
- Desk decisions are fast. Scope problems surface within days.
- Reviewer availability is the main variable after triage. Specialized topics take longer to assign.
- Revision rounds reset the clock. Major revision typically adds 6-12 weeks per round.
What to do while waiting
- Track status in the submission portal — status changes signal active review.
- Wait at least the journal's stated median before sending a status inquiry.
- Prepare revision materials in parallel if you expect a revise-and-resubmit decision.
_Last reviewed: 2026-05-16._
Quick answer: If your Energy manuscript shows "Under Review," the most reliable signal is elapsed time, not the status label. Energy (Elsevier) has a 2024 JCR impact factor of 9.0, accepts about 25 percent of submissions, and reports a median first-decision time of 6 to 10 weeks. If you have been Under Review for more than 2 weeks without a rejection, you have likely cleared the initial editorial screen.
Submission portal and editorial contact: Energy uses Elsevier Editorial Manager at editorialmanager.com/eg. Editorial questions go through the Elsevier author portal; for technical support, contact support@elsevier.com referencing your manuscript ID.
Energy desk-rejects roughly 50 to 60 percent of submissions in the first 1 to 2 weeks. If your paper is still showing "Under Review" after that window, the editors are evaluating it seriously.
While you wait
You can't speed up Energy's review. A Energy submission readiness check flags techno-economic gaps, system-integration framing, and methodology issues that drive most desk rejections, in about 5 minutes.
Energy's review pipeline
Status | What is happening | Typical duration |
|---|---|---|
Submitted to Journal | Administrative processing | Day 0 to 2 |
With Editor | Editor evaluating desk-screen fit | Days 2 to 14 |
Under Review | Reviewers invited or actively reviewing | Days 14 to 70 |
Required Reviews Complete | Editor synthesizing reports | 5 to 10 days |
Decision in Process | Editor finalizing decision letter | 3 to 7 days |
Decision Sent | Reject, R&R, or accept | Check email |
The editorial desk screen (about 50 to 60 percent rejected)
Energy editors are evaluating energy-systems contribution, methodology rigor, and broader energy-research relevance.
Day 0: Elsevier Editorial Manager upload
The portal accepts the package and routes to a handling editor matching the energy-systems subfield.
Days 1 to 14: Editor desk-screen
The handling editor reads the paper, evaluates energy-systems contribution, methodology, and scope fit.
Days 14 to 30: Reviewer invitations
Energy typically invites two to three reviewers with topic-matched energy expertise.
Days 30 to 70: Peer review
Reviewer reports return on a 6 to 10 week cadence; system-modeling and techno-economic papers extend the timeline.
Days 70 to 90: First editorial decision
Major revision is the most common outcome for papers that pass desk review.
Days 90 to 270: Revision rounds and acceptance
Single-revision acceptances run roughly 4 to 6 months; multi-round revisions push closer to 8 months.
When to worry
- Rejection within 1 to 5 days: Administrative issue or scope mismatch.
- Rejection within 7 to 14 days: Desk rejection. Editor concluded the paper does not meet Energy's bar or fits a sister Elsevier journal better.
- Still Under Review after 3 weeks: Good sign. Editor decided to proceed to peer review.
- Still Under Review after 10 weeks: Reviewer delay. Polite inquiry is appropriate.
- Status changes to "Required Reviews Complete": Reports are in; expect decision within 1 to 2 weeks.
What to do while waiting
- Do not contact the editorial office during the first 8 weeks unless urgent.
- Do not submit the same paper elsewhere while Under Review at Energy.
- Prepare a point-by-point response template focused on energy-systems framing, techno-economic completeness, and methodology rigor.
- If you posted a preprint, continue presenting at conferences.
Readiness check
While you wait on Energy, scan your next manuscript.
The scan takes about 1-2 minutes. Use the result to decide whether to revise before the decision comes back.
How Energy compares to nearby alternatives for status tracking
Feature | Energy (Elsevier) | Energy & Environmental Science | Joule | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Desk rejection rate | 50 to 60 percent | 50 to 60 percent | 50 to 60 percent | 80 to 85 percent |
Desk decision speed | 7 to 14 days | 3 days median (per ScienceDirect) | 7 to 14 days | 7 to 14 days |
Status granularity | Low to moderate | Low to moderate | Low to moderate | Moderate |
Total review time | 6 to 10 weeks median | 56 days post-review median | 30 to 45 days first decision | 8 to 14 weeks |
Editorial bar | Broad energy systems and conversion | Applied energy with deployment focus | Top energy with sustainability framing | Highest-impact energy with systems implications |
Submit if your paper passed the desk
If your Energy paper is Under Review and has been for more than 2 weeks, you have likely cleared the desk screen.
Energy submission readiness check. It takes about 1-2 minutes.
For a free pre-upload diagnostic on a future Energy manuscript, use the Energy manuscript fit check to surface energy-systems framing gaps and techno-economic completeness issues.
Think twice before assuming "Under Review" means safe
Energy editors retain discretion to reject after partial review. Our Energy manuscript fit check flags energy-systems framing gaps, missing techno-economic depth, and weak methodology before reviewers do.
Last verified: Energy author guidance, Elsevier Editorial Manager portal at editorialmanager.com/eg, and Elsevier author portal.
Energy review timeline compared to other broad energy venues
Timeline stage | Energy | Applied Energy | Energy & Environmental Science | Renewable Energy |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Desk decision | 7 to 14 days | 3 days median | 7 to 14 days | 14 to 21 days |
Desk rejection rate | 50 to 60 percent | 50 to 60 percent | 50 to 60 percent | 40 to 50 percent |
Peer review period | 4 to 8 weeks | 4 to 8 weeks | 3 to 6 weeks | 4 to 8 weeks |
First decision (total) | 6 to 10 weeks median | 56 days post-review | 30 to 45 days first decision | 8 to 12 weeks |
Revision period | 60 days typical | 60 days typical | 60 days typical | 60 to 90 days |
Total time to acceptance | 4 to 7 months | 4 to 6 months | 4 to 6 months | 5 to 8 months |
The Energy reviewer experience
Reviewer focus area | What Energy asks reviewers to evaluate | How to prepare for it |
|---|---|---|
Energy-systems contribution | Does the paper advance energy systems or conversion broadly? | Frame the introduction around the energy-system decision the paper affects |
Techno-economic completeness | Is the cost/performance analysis complete with realistic assumptions? | Include sensitivity analysis and source commercial cost data |
Methodology rigor | Are simulation, experimental, or modeling methods appropriate? | Document assumptions clearly; include validation against existing data |
Broader relevance | Does the work travel beyond one narrow energy subfield? | Generalize the implications carefully without overreach |
Reproducibility | Could another team reproduce these analyses? | Deposit data/code; describe parameter selections in detail |
What we have seen while authors wait for Energy decisions
The waiting is informative: if no decision in 3 weeks, you have likely cleared the desk screen. The 8-to-10-week window is at or near the median, not a red flag.
In our pre-submission review work with Energy manuscripts
Three failure patterns generate the most consistent rejections.
Energy-systems framing thin. Energy publishes broad energy-systems research. Papers framed as pure component optimization without systems context get rejected. The fix is to articulate the energy-system decision the work affects.
Techno-economic analysis weak. Papers claiming deployment relevance without quantitative cost analysis get flagged. The fix is to include sensitivity analysis with sourced commercial cost data.
Wrong Elsevier energy venue chosen. Energy competes with Applied Energy, Renewable Energy, Energy Conversion and Management, and Energy Policy. The fix is informed routing based on contribution focus.
Methodology note: how to use this page safely
This page was created from Energy's public author guidance, Elsevier Editorial Manager documentation, and Manusights review work. We did not test the private manuscript-status system.
Signal you can trust | Signal to ignore | Best action |
|---|---|---|
Elapsed time since submission | Refreshing the same status daily | Compare your wait with the timeline above |
A decision email or editor inquiry | Forum guesses about one label | Respond to the actual request |
Reviewer comments after decision | Whether the status changed at midnight | Build a point-by-point response plan |
Frequently asked questions
Your manuscript has cleared Elsevier Editorial Manager admin checks and is being evaluated, either by the handling editor or by external peer reviewers. Energy treats 'Under Review' as the active editorial period from desk screen through peer review.
Energy reports a median first-decision time of 6 to 10 weeks. Desk decisions usually arrive within 1 to 2 weeks; full peer-review decisions land 6 to 14 weeks after submission.
Wait at least 10 weeks before inquiring. Contact the editorial office through the Elsevier portal, reference your manuscript ID, and keep it factual.
A handling editor matching the energy-systems subfield is evaluating the paper. Energy typically invites two to three reviewers.
Yes. The 6 to 10 week median means roughly half of papers take longer. System-modeling or techno-economic papers extend the timeline.
Past 10 weeks is the right moment for a polite, factual inquiry. Past 14 weeks suggests a reviewer dropped out. Silence in the first 6 weeks is normal.
Sources
Best next step
Use this page to interpret the status and choose the next sensible move.
For Energy, the better next step is guidance on timing, follow-up, and what to do while the manuscript is still in the system. Save the Free Readiness Scan for the next paper you have not submitted yet.
Guidance first. Use the scan for the next manuscript.
Anthropic Privacy Partner. Zero-retention manuscript processing.
Where to go next
Start here
Same journal, next question
- Energy Submission Process: What Happens From Upload to First Decision
- How to Avoid Desk Rejection at Energy in 2026
- Is Energy a Good Journal? Fit Verdict
- Energy Policy Submission Guide
- Pre-Submission Review for Energy Storage Papers
- Energy APC and Open Access: Elsevier Pricing, Institutional Deals, and Alternatives
Supporting reads
Conversion step
Use this page to interpret the status and choose the next sensible move.
Guidance first. Use the scan for the next manuscript.