Journal of Cleaner Production 'Under Review': What Each Status Means

Before the paper reaches external reviewers, a Journal of Cleaner Production handling editor evaluates whether the cleaner-production relevance warrants editorial slots. About 40 to 50 percent of submissions are desk-rejected at this stage. A desk rejection most often means the handling editor concluded that the work is sustainability-themed but descriptive (rather than quantified), weakly quantified (relying on conceptual frameworks without real data), or detached from real systems (theoretical without industrial validation). Manuscripts must demonstrate clear cleaner-production relevance connected to real production, consumption, or industrial systems.

The Journal of Cleaner Production editorial office confirms files are complete: manuscript with figures embedded, Supporting Information with quantitative cleaner-production data and real-system context, Elsevier template formatting, cover letter directed to the editor naming real-system connection, conflict-of-interest declarations, ethics-statement documentation, and data-availability statement.

Elsevier's technical check screens the submission for language quality, scope fit, and originality via plagiarism check. Submissions that need English language improvements, are out of scope, or present excessive duplication with published sources can be desk rejected before editor review.

The handling editor reads the paper and evaluates cleaner-production relevance, quantification rigor, real-system connection, and Journal of Cleaner Production subspecialty routing.

In parallel with the handling editor's primary read, ambiguous-fit papers are discussed across the Elsevier Journal of Cleaner Production editorial team where peer handling editors weigh in on whether the paper would fit better at Journal of Cleaner Production flagship or at sister Elsevier sustainability journals (Cleaner Production Letters, Cleaner Manufacturing). This editorial-team discussion runs alongside the desk-screen and adds 3 to 5 days to the timeline that is invisible to the author in the portal.

Journal of Cleaner Production handling editors typically invite a minimum of 2 reviewers, with reviewer recruitment typically taking 7 to 14 days. The recruitment window can take longer because reviewers with topic-matched cleaner-production subspecialty expertise (especially across industrial sustainability, life-cycle assessment, supply-chain decarbonization, and circular-economy boundaries) are scarce.

Once reviewers agree to review, the typical Journal of Cleaner Production peer-review cycle lasts 4 to 8 weeks per reviewer with a 6.1-week first review round average. Reviewers are asked to evaluate cleaner-production relevance, quantification rigor, real-system connection, and reproducibility. Reviewer reports for Journal of Cleaner Production tend to be focused; 1500 to 3000 word reports are typical.

After reports return, the handling editor synthesizes them. Total submission-to-acceptance commonly runs 4 to 8 months for successful papers, including revision rounds.

• Rejection within 1 to 7 days: Technical check rejection or rapid scope-based desk rejection.
• Rejection within 7 to 14 days: Handling editor desk rejection per the 40 to 50 percent figure.
• Still Under Review after 2 weeks: Strong signal. Paper passed the Journal of Cleaner Production handling editor filter.
• 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 1 to 2 weeks.

This is the most common anxiety we hear from Journal of Cleaner Production authors during the active editorial window. The honest answer: no, 6 weeks at Under Review puts you right at Journal of Cleaner Production's 6.1-week first review round average. Reports may already be in editorial synthesis with the handling editor preparing the recommendation. Most reviewer-driven delays come from reviewer-recruitment timing for cleaner-production 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 Journal of Cleaner Production.

What you should NOT do during the 6-to-9-week window is email the editorial office. Journal of Cleaner Production handling editors are working academic sustainability researchers managing 50+ active papers; an inquiry at 6 weeks adds friction without accelerating the timeline.

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

Cleaner Production Letters is the natural Elsevier short-format cleaner-production cascade. Elsevier supports manuscript-transfer with reviewer reports preserved.

Cleaner Manufacturing is the Elsevier cascade for manufacturing-focused cleaner-production papers.

Resources, Conservation and Recycling is the Elsevier cascade for circular-economy papers.

Sustainable Production and Consumption is the Elsevier cascade for consumption-side sustainability papers.

Journal of Industrial Ecology (Wiley) is the external Wiley cascade for industrial ecology papers. Wiley uses Editorial Manager at editorialmanager.com/jiec; editorial contact jiec@wiley.com.

Nature Sustainability is the external Springer Nature top-tier sustainability cascade. The Nature Sustainability Manuscript Tracking System at mts-natsust.nature.com handles submission; natsust@nature.com handles publisher-level inquiries.

Elsevier asks reviewers at Journal of Cleaner Production to evaluate four things specifically. The table below maps each to actionable preparation.

In our pre-submission work with Journal of Cleaner Production-targeted manuscripts, three named patterns generate the most consistent reviewer concerns and the most common reasons papers miss the editorial bar or fail the desk screen.

Descriptive sustainability framing flagged at handling editor screen. When the work is sustainability-themed but descriptive (rather than quantified with life-cycle assessment, material flow analysis, or energy balance), Journal of Cleaner Production desk rejection within 1 to 2 weeks is common. The strongest manuscripts include rigorous quantification.

Real-system connection gaps surface as reviewer concerns. When the work is theoretical without real production, consumption, or industrial-system connection, reviewers consistently flag concerns. The strongest revisions add real-system context (industrial validation, case study, supply-chain context).

Elsevier sustainability cascade offers from handling editor. When the handling editor concludes the work is rigorous but the cleaner-production priority bar of Journal of Cleaner Production flagship is not met, transfer offers to Cleaner Production Letters (short-format), Cleaner Manufacturing (manufacturing-focused), or Resources, Conservation and Recycling (circular-economy) are common. Elsevier editors take these transfers seriously.

This page was created from Elsevier's public Journal of Cleaner Production guide for authors at sciencedirect.com/journal/journal-of-cleaner-production/publish/guide-for-authors, Elsevier Editorial Manager documentation (single-anonymized peer review, minimum 2 reviewers, ~6.1-week first review round average per SciRev community data, scope-fit critical for desk-screen pass, cleaner-production relevance + quantification + real-system connection as core editorial criteria), and Manusights pre-submission review experience with Journal of Cleaner Production-targeted manuscripts.

For the cleaner-production landscape beyond Journal of Cleaner Production, see Cleaner Production Letters (short-format cascade), Cleaner Manufacturing (manufacturing-focused), Resources, Conservation and Recycling (circular-economy), Sustainable Production and Consumption (consumption-side), and external sustainability alternatives (Journal of Industrial Ecology, Nature Sustainability). The choice across these titles depends on whether the central contribution is top-tier cleaner-production with real-system connection (Journal of Cleaner Production), short-format cleaner-production (Cleaner Production Letters), manufacturing-focused (Cleaner Manufacturing), circular-economy (Resources Conservation and Recycling), consumption-side (Sustainable Production and Consumption), industrial ecology (Journal of Industrial Ecology), or top-tier Nature Portfolio (Nature Sustainability).

Reviewers at Journal of Cleaner Production typically draw from 2 to 3 cleaner-production subspecialty experts under a single-anonymized model. Editors screen and triage manuscripts before any external reviewer sees them, and preparing a response template that addresses both quantification and real-system perspectives accelerates revision rounds substantially.

For a pre-upload check of your manuscript against the Journal of Cleaner Production cleaner-production-relevance-plus-quantification bar before submission, our Journal of Cleaner Production pre-submission diagnostic flags the framing and quantification weaknesses most likely to surface in reviewer reports.