International Journal of Hydrogen Energy Submission Guide: Scope & Tips

IJHE editorial workflow at Elsevier Editorial Manager (Editorial Manager submission portal) is fast at receipt but editorially demanding on hydrogen-energy-application grounds. Editors screen for energy-systems framing, real benchmarking, and operating-condition evidence in the first read.

Day 1-3: Receipt and tech-check

Editorial Manager confirms file integrity, the 3-5 Highlights bullets, the abstract length (200 words for Research), the COI declaration, the AI-use declaration, the CRediT author contributions, and the keywords (no more than 6). Manuscripts missing Highlights or with >6 keywords get a quick technical-return.

Day 3-10: Editor assignment

A handling editor specialized by IJHE's tracks (hydrogen production, storage, transport, fuel cells, infrastructure, system integration) takes the paper. The scope read decides whether the contribution is hydrogen-energy work or better routed to Int J Hydrogen Energy's sister Elsevier titles (Int J Energy Research, Applied Energy, Energy Conversion and Management) or to specialty venues (J Power Sources, J Electroanal Chem).

Week 2-4: Editorial scope assessment

The editor decides desk-reject, transfer-offer, or send for peer review. Editors screen for whether the abstract names the energy application early, whether benchmarking against realistic nearby technologies exists, and whether durability or operating-condition evidence is present.

Week 4-10: External peer review

Two or three reviewers report. IJHE reviewers (drawn from a large hydrogen-energy specialist pool) expect benchmark comparisons, durability and cycling evidence, and quantified efficiency / cost analysis.

Week 12-18: First decision

Reject / major revision / minor revision / accept. Revisions returned within the requested window typically reach the second decision in 4-6 weeks.

Editors screen IJHE uploads against the following artifacts at Editorial Manager tech-check (Editorial Manager submission portal). Missing any of the first five (especially Highlights or CRediT contributions) triggers an immediate technical return rather than substantive desk review.

The required artifacts are:

• the cover letter (with hydrogen-energy framing and any prior-rejection / preprint disclosure)

• the manuscript file in Elsevier standard format

• the structured abstract (no more than 200 words for Research, no more than 250 for Reviews)

• the 3-5 Highlights bullets (no more than 85 chars each)

• the graphical abstract (encouraged)

• the author contributions statement (CRediT taxonomy)

• the conflicts of interest declaration

• the funding statement and source listing

• the data availability statement

• the generative AI use declaration (mandatory since 2024)

• the keywords list (no more than 6)

• the suggested reviewers (3-5 non-conflicted hydrogen-energy specialists)

• the supplementary information (raw data, additional figures, computational details).

ORCID identifiers are required for the corresponding author and strongly encouraged for co-authors.

IJHE is centered on hydrogen as an energy vector. Editors expect the paper to connect directly to one of the journal's core lanes:

• hydrogen production

• hydrogen storage

• fuel cells

• hydrogen transport or infrastructure

• hydrogen system integration

The paper should not merely mention hydrogen. It should explain what technical barrier is being improved and why that matters for energy deployment or performance.

The administrative steps are manageable. The real challenge is whether the package already looks like a complete hydrogen-energy paper.

Before submitting to International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, an International Journal of Hydrogen Energy submission readiness check identifies whether the package meets the editorial bar before you commit to the submission.

The patterns that usually hurt the package are:

• the hydrogen-energy context appears too late

• benchmarking is selective or not decision-useful

• practical conditions are missing or unrealistic

• durability evidence is too thin for the headline claim

• the manuscript feels like chemistry first and energy second

Editors do not need every paper to be commercialization-ready. They do need the energy significance to look real.

If the manuscript needs several pages before the hydrogen-energy use case becomes obvious, the package starts weakly. The first page should answer three questions fast:

• what system problem is being addressed

• what technical change the paper introduces

• why that change matters in an energy setting

Editors should not have to infer that bridge from the discussion section.

IJHE editors are not only checking whether a result looks better than something else. They are checking whether the comparison helps them understand practical value. That usually means:

• comparing against realistic nearby technologies

• stating operating conditions clearly

• showing where the result is better and where it is still limited

Selective benchmarking often makes the package look less trustworthy even when the technical result is real.

If the paper is framed as practically meaningful, durability cannot be an afterthought. Even when the work is still early, the manuscript should make clear whether the result looks stable enough to matter and what limits remain. Reviewers in hydrogen energy routinely check whether cycling stability, degradation rates, and operating-condition ranges are consistent with the claim level.

A single-measurement result presented as a practical advance will consistently generate reviewer requests for longer-term evidence or operating-condition sweeps. Addressing durability scope honestly in the manuscript, showing what was tested and what remains, is stronger than leaving the gap for reviewers to discover.

The cover letter should explain why this belongs in IJHE specifically. A useful letter usually does three things:

• states the hydrogen-energy problem directly

• names the strongest practical contribution

• explains why the result belongs in this journal's audience

That framing helps the editor make a cleaner routing decision.

A stronger package usually has:

• a first page that names the hydrogen-energy barrier clearly

• benchmarking that places the result against realistic alternatives

• enough operating-condition or durability detail to support the claim level

• discussion that connects the science to an energy consequence

• a cover letter that explains why the paper belongs in IJHE rather than in a broader chemistry or materials venue

That combination makes the manuscript easier to trust on first read and easier for the editor to route confidently into peer review without hesitating over fit or package maturity at all in practice today.

The IJHE submission process is smoother when the package already answers the editor's first practical questions:

• what hydrogen-energy problem does this solve?

• how does it compare with realistic alternatives?

• is the result stable enough to matter?

• does the manuscript read like a complete application-facing paper?

If you can answer those clearly on page one, the process usually becomes much easier.

Before you upload, run your manuscript through an IJHE submission readiness check to catch the issues editors filter for on first read.

Across hydrogen-energy manuscripts targeting International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, the recurring editorial problem is not whether the paper mentions hydrogen. The recurring problem is whether the abstract, methods, figures, cover letter, references, and supplementary files prove that the paper belongs in a hydrogen-energy systems journal rather than a chemistry, catalysis, materials, or electrochemistry journal.

Hydrogen chemistry result without an energy-system protagonist

Across hydrogen-energy manuscripts targeting International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, we see otherwise strong manuscripts lose the IJHE fit case when the abstract opens with catalyst synthesis, material characterization, or reaction behavior but never names the energy-system protagonist clearly enough.

The paper may include HER, electrolysis, storage uptake, membrane performance, or fuel-cell operation, but the manuscript still reads as "hydrogen-related chemistry" unless the title, abstract, first figure, methods, and cover letter tell the editor which production, storage, transport, fuel-cell, or integration barrier the study is solving. For International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, that distinction matters because the official guide and journal scope center hydrogen as an energy vector, not hydrogen as an incidental chemistry object.

The correction is usually structural. Put the hydrogen-energy barrier in the first abstract sentence, align Figure 1 with that barrier, and make the methods section report operating conditions in energy-relevant units rather than only synthetic or analytical conditions.

The cover letter should state why the paper is a better fit for International Journal of Hydrogen Energy than Journal of Catalysis, Applied Catalysis B, Journal of Power Sources, or Energy Conversion and Management. The references should include the current hydrogen-energy benchmark literature, not only catalyst or materials papers.

If the manuscript cannot make that case without rewriting the introduction, the honest route may be Journal of Power Sources for electrochemical device emphasis, Applied Energy for system-level energy relevance, Energy Conversion and Management for conversion architecture, or a specialist catalysis venue where the chemistry is the protagonist.

Check whether your IJHE abstract makes the hydrogen-energy protagonist visible →

Benchmark figure that looks impressive but is not decision-useful

Across hydrogen-energy manuscripts targeting International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, the second pattern is a figure package that proves a result is favorable only against the easiest comparison. The main figures may show high current density, storage capacity, conversion efficiency, or fuel-cell output, but the comparison table omits the realistic competing materials, reactor designs, electrolyte conditions, loading levels, pressure windows, temperatures, cycling protocol, or device configurations that an IJHE reviewer needs before trusting the claim.

This is where a manuscript can be technically correct and still weak for International Journal of Hydrogen Energy: the editor cannot tell whether the result changes a practical hydrogen-energy decision.

The stronger package builds a decision-useful benchmark table into the main text, not just the supplement. For a production paper, that usually means operating conditions, catalyst loading, overpotential or efficiency, stability time, and comparison to credible nearby approaches. For storage, it means uptake, reversibility, pressure and temperature window, cycling, safety constraints, and mass-normalized relevance.

For fuel cells, it means membrane electrode assembly conditions, durability, controls, and comparison to Journal of Power Sources or Energy & Environmental Science expectations. When the benchmark belongs mostly in a system or policy frame, Applied Energy, Nature Energy, Energy Conversion and Management, or Cell Reports Physical Science may be more coherent targets.

The point is not to make IJHE reviewers hunt through supplementary tables for the comparison that should have anchored the claim.

Check whether your IJHE benchmark table is decision-useful →

Durability evidence parked outside the main claim

Across hydrogen-energy manuscripts targeting International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, the third pattern appears when a manuscript makes deployment-facing language in the abstract and conclusion but treats durability, cycling, operating-condition sensitivity, controls, or degradation analysis as optional supplementary detail. That mismatch is easy for IJHE editors to spot. If the abstract says practical hydrogen production, stable storage, robust fuel-cell operation, scalable conversion, or infrastructure relevance, then the figures, methods, supplementary files, and limitations section need enough durability evidence to support the level of the claim.

A stronger International Journal of Hydrogen Energy submission does not have to pretend the work is deployment-ready. It does need to show what was tested, where the result is stable, where it is fragile, and what the evidence can honestly support. For electrocatalysis, include stability duration, post-test characterization, and realistic electrolyte or loading context. For storage materials, show reversibility, cycle retention, and operating-window constraints.

For membrane or fuel-cell papers, align the figure sequence with device conditions and degradation evidence. If the durability story is too early for IJHE but the mechanistic insight is strong, Journal of Physical Chemistry C, Journal of Power Sources, Applied Catalysis B, or a specialty materials journal may be cleaner.

If the durability story is strong, make it visible in the abstract, main figures, cover letter, and supplementary files before upload.

Check whether your IJHE durability evidence supports the claim level →

This guide tells you what IJHE editors look for before review: a hydrogen-energy protagonist, decision-useful benchmarking, and durability evidence that matches the claim level. Manusights checks never train on your manuscript, and every pre-submission review is covered by the 60-day money-back guarantee when it does not deliver a usable submission-readiness report.

Before submitting to International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, an IJHE submission readiness check identifies whether your energy-system framing, benchmarking evidence, and application argument meet the editorial bar before you commit to the submission.

Or see example reports before you finalize.

If you have already submitted, see International Journal of Hydrogen Energy Under Review for the portal meaning, follow-up threshold, and reviewer-risk preparation window. That status page connects this guide to the live waiting period after submission.

1. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy journal profile, Manusights.

• SciRev: reviewer timeline data