Is Your Paper Ready for Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews? A Practical Submission Guide

RSER publishes review articles only. That changes the submission logic immediately: a solid experimental or modeling paper can still be completely wrong for this venue because the article type itself does not fit. This is not a minor formatting distinction. If you submit a paper reporting new data from an experiment, a simulation, or a field study, the editors will desk-reject it regardless of quality.

For this journal, the editor is asking whether your manuscript meaningfully synthesizes the existing literature, clarifies contradictions, identifies gaps, and gives readers a more useful map of the field than the underlying papers do on their own.

The journal covers all areas of renewable energy and sustainability, solar, wind, biomass, hydrogen, energy storage, grid integration, building efficiency, sustainable transport, life cycle assessment, and energy policy. The scope is wide, but the format requirement is absolute: reviews only.

For RSER, "ready" means more than "we read a lot of papers." The editors see hundreds of submissions that are really just annotated bibliographies, long lists of what each study found, organized by subtopic, with no analytical thread holding them together. Those get rejected fast.

A manuscript is ready for RSER when it meets all of the following:

The topic genuinely needs a review right now. Check the RSER archive for recent reviews on your subject. If someone published a comprehensive review on the same topic within the last 2-3 years, your angle needs to be meaningfully different. "We included more recent papers" is not a sufficient justification. The review landscape in energy is crowded, and RSER editors know it.

The manuscript is analytical, not descriptive. This is the single most common failure mode. A descriptive review summarizes what each paper found. An analytical review identifies patterns, contradictions, methodological gaps, and emerging directions across the literature. RSER wants the second kind. If you can remove any section of your manuscript and the remaining sections still make the same point, you probably have a descriptive catalog rather than an analytical synthesis.

The review is clearly distinct from existing reviews. Before submitting, search RSER itself for your topic. The editors know their own archive. If your review overlaps substantially with a published RSER paper, you'll need to explain in your cover letter exactly what new ground you cover.

The scope is neither too narrow nor too broad. A review of "one specific catalyst formulation for one specific reaction" is too narrow for RSER. A review of "all renewable energy technologies" is too broad to be useful. The sweet spot is a clearly defined research question that spans enough literature to justify a review but is focused enough to provide actionable conclusions.

The piece is framed as a synthesis, not disguised original research. Some authors package their own experimental data inside a "review" framework to get access to RSER's impact factor. Editors catch this. If more than 15-20% of the cited work is your own group's output, the manuscript reads as a group summary rather than a field review.

Purely descriptive literature surveys. The manuscript walks through 200 papers organized by subtopic but never synthesizes. Each paragraph follows the pattern "Author X studied Y and found Z." There's no comparative analysis, no identification of contradictions, and no framework for understanding the field. This is the most common rejection reason by far.

Stale topics without a new angle. "A review of solar cell efficiency improvements" has been done. Many times. In RSER itself. Unless your angle is genuinely fresh, a new analytical framework, coverage of a technology shift that invalidates older reviews, or a cross-disciplinary perspective that hasn't been attempted, the editors will pass.

Review articles that are actually research papers. The manuscript contains substantial original data, novel simulations, or new experimental results. That's research, not a review. The fact that you also cite 150 other papers doesn't change the fundamental article type.

Weak methodology for the review itself. RSER increasingly expects authors to describe their review methodology: search terms, databases, inclusion/exclusion criteria, and the number of papers screened. If your methodology section says "we searched Google Scholar for relevant papers," that's not rigorous enough. Systematic or semi-systematic approaches are strongly preferred.

Missing a critical perspective. The best RSER reviews don't just summarize what the literature says. They identify what the literature gets wrong, where the gaps are, and what specific research directions would move the field forward. If your conclusion section reads "more research is needed," you haven't gone far enough.

While RSER does not mandate a rigid structure, successful reviews typically include: (1) an introduction that justifies why this review needs to exist now, (2) a methodology section describing search terms, databases, inclusion/exclusion criteria, and papers screened, (3) analytical body sections organized by theme rather than by individual paper, (4) comparative tables and figures that synthesize results across the literature, and (5) a forward-looking conclusion with specific research gaps and concrete next steps.

RSER papers tend to be long, 40 to 80 journal pages is typical. The journal does not penalize length if the content justifies it, but padding with repetitive summaries of individual papers will annoy reviewers.

• You are preparing a review article, not primary research.
• The topic spans enough of the renewable or sustainable energy landscape to matter beyond a narrow subfield.
• The review explains what the literature means together, not just what each paper reported individually.
• You have checked recent RSER coverage and your angle is not duplicative.
• You can articulate in one sentence what your review reveals that readers cannot get from reading the underlying papers.

• You have a normal experimental, computational, or policy paper with new data. Target Applied Energy, Energy, or a field-specific journal instead.
• The manuscript catalogs papers instead of analyzing them. Revise the approach before submitting anywhere.
• The topic has been reviewed recently in RSER and your angle is not meaningfully different.
• The review is so narrow that it only covers 20-30 papers. That's more appropriate for a mini-review in a research journal.

A Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews manuscript fit check at this stage can identify scope mismatches and common structural issues before you finalize your submission.

In our pre-submission review work with manuscripts targeting Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, five patterns generate the most consistent desk rejections worth knowing before submission.

Systematic literature search without documented methodology (roughly 35%). The RSER author guidelines require that review articles follow a systematic or structured approach to literature identification. In our experience, roughly 35% of review submissions that reach us lack any documented search methodology: no database list, no search terms, no date range, no inclusion/exclusion criteria. Editors consistently treat undocumented search scope as a sign that the review is curated rather than systematic, which undermines the claims of comprehensiveness that the abstract typically makes.

Review scope too narrow to justify the generalized conclusions (roughly 25%). In our experience, roughly 25% of submissions draw conclusions about a technology category or policy direction while covering only a narrow geographic region or time window. A review of solar integration covering only European utility-scale data between 2018 and 2022 cannot make claims about global deployment trends or long-term cost trajectories. Editors consistently return these papers with requests to either narrow the stated conclusions or substantially expand the evidence base.

Missing quantitative synthesis of the reviewed literature (roughly 20%). In our experience, roughly 20% of submissions describe the findings of reviewed papers in qualitative terms without synthesizing the quantitative data those papers contain. A review covering 80 studies on battery degradation rates that never aggregates the reported capacity fade numbers per cycle has not done the work RSER expects. Editors consistently reject reviews that describe the literature rather than synthesize it into new quantitative insights.

No identification of research gaps or future priorities (roughly 15%). In our experience, roughly 15% of submissions summarize the current state of knowledge without explicitly identifying where that knowledge is incomplete. RSER editors consistently expect that review papers advance the field by naming the specific open questions, methodological limitations, or data gaps that future research should address. A review that ends with "more research is needed" without specifying what that research should measure or resolve does not satisfy this requirement.

Insufficient coverage of policy, economic, or deployment barriers (roughly 10%). In our experience, roughly 10% of technically focused reviews fail to address the non-technical barriers that determine whether a technology reaches meaningful deployment. RSER covers the full energy transition pipeline, and editors consistently flag reviews that treat technology readiness as sufficient for recommending deployment without discussing grid integration constraints, cost competitiveness, regulatory frameworks, or social acceptance factors.

SciRev community data for Renewable Sustainable Energy Reviews confirms the review timeline and rejection patterns documented above.

Before submitting to Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, a RSER manuscript fit check identifies whether your literature methodology, synthesis approach, and scope framing meet the editorial bar before you commit to the submission.

• Manusights local context from is Applied Energy a good journal, is Energy a good journal, and how to choose a journal for your paper