Journal of Energy Storage Submission Guide

Source: Clarivate JCR 2024, Elsevier editorial disclosures (accessed April 2026).

Source: Journal of Energy Storage author guidelines.

Use this page when deciding:

• whether the storage-system advance is substantive

• whether cycling and stability data are included

• whether benchmarking is comprehensive

• a clear storage-system advance (material, design, or system)

• comprehensive performance metrics (capacity, energy/power density)

• cycling and stability data

• benchmarking against state-of-the-art systems

• a cover letter establishing the storage contribution

• Incremental performance improvements without novel contribution.

• Missing cycling or stability data.

• Weak benchmarking against state-of-the-art.

• General electrochemistry without storage focus.

Journal of Energy Storage is a flagship energy-storage research journal.

Storage-system focus: the journal differentiates from Energy Storage Materials (materials-focused) and Electrochimica Acta (broader electrochemistry) by demanding substantive storage-system contributions.

Cycling-data expectation: editors expect long-term cycling data on materials with practical claims.

The 30-40% desk rejection rate: decisive editorial screen.

The strongest Journal of Energy Storage cover letters establish:

• the storage-system advance

• the performance metrics

• the cycling and stability evidence

• the benchmarking approach

Journal of Energy Storage manuscripts move through a four-stage editorial timeline. The journal's high submission volume (well over 18,000 published papers in its history) compresses editor attention at the desk-screen stage.

Day 0 to 5: Editorial Manager intake and technical check

The platform performs an automated check (source-file format, declarations, highlights, graphical abstract). PDF submissions are returned at this stage. Editorial staff verify that the cover letter, data statement, and competing-interests declaration are present.

Day 5 to 21: Editor-in-Chief or Associate Editor assignment

An Associate Editor (matched to the manuscript's storage chemistry: lithium-ion, supercapacitor, thermal, hydrogen, or mechanical) is assigned. Editors desk-screen for novelty above the state of the art, performance benchmarking against published systems, and presence of stability or cycling data sufficient to support practical claims.

Week 4 to 8: External peer review

Manuscripts that pass desk-screen go to 2-3 reviewers. The journal's median first decision falls in the 4-8 week window. Reviewer turnaround on lithium-ion and supercapacitor work is faster than on emerging chemistries where the reviewer pool is smaller.

Week 8 to 16: Decision and revision rounds

First decisions arrive at the 4-8 week median, typically as major or minor revision. Revision cycles add 4-12 weeks. Authors may file a formal appeal request per Elsevier's Appeal Policy (one appeal per submission, decision final).

• Is Journal of Energy Storage a good journal?

Before upload, run your manuscript through a Journal of Energy Storage system performance readiness check.

Start with the official rules for upload mechanics, then judge the draft itself. The review tells you whether your paper clears the Journal of Energy Storage fit check before upload, especially around storage material paper without a storage-system decision, cycling and stability evidence that cannot support the application claim, and benchmark table that compares against convenient rather than state-of-the-art systems. Paid Manusights reviews include a 60-day money-back guarantee, and we do not train models on submitted manuscripts.

Across energy-storage manuscripts targeting Journal of Energy Storage, three recurring patterns explain the majority of desk rejections. Elsevier's scope language is broad across electrochemical, thermal, mechanical, electrical, and systems storage, so the manuscript has to make the storage contribution unmistakable in the abstract, figures, methods, benchmark table, supplementary data, and cover letter.

Storage material paper without a storage-system decision

The first failure pattern is a materials paper that reports a promising electrode, electrolyte, phase-change material, thermal medium, or device component but never explains the storage-system decision it improves. Journal of Energy Storage is not only a materials venue. Its readers need to know what changes about storage sizing, management, integration, cycling, thermal control, reliability, safety, economics, or grid/device operation.

In Manusights reviews, weak manuscripts often put synthesis, characterization, or optimization in the main figures and leave storage consequence as a final performance panel. The abstract should name the storage function, not only the material. The methods should specify operating conditions, cycle protocol, rate, temperature, depth of discharge, degradation tracking, or model assumptions. The figures should make the storage-system implication visible.

The cover letter should explain why Journal of Energy Storage is more precise than Energy Storage Materials, Journal of Power Sources, Applied Energy, Energy, or Electrochimica Acta. If the manuscript is really about materials novelty with limited storage consequence, a materials journal may be cleaner.

Check storage material paper without a storage system decision before submitting to Journal of Energy Storage →

Cycling and stability evidence that cannot support the application claim

The second pattern is missing or underpowered durability evidence. Manuscripts often report attractive first-cycle capacity, charge-discharge efficiency, thermal storage density, or round-trip performance, then make application claims that require longer cycling, calendar aging, impedance tracking, leakage, safety, or degradation analysis. For Journal of Energy Storage, the methods and supplementary files should show the full test protocol and raw or reusable data where possible.

A summary plot is not enough when the claim depends on long-term stability. If the manuscript discusses grid storage, electric vehicles, building thermal storage, hydrogen storage, or industrial energy management, reviewers will look for benchmark conditions that resemble that use case. They will also check whether the comparison table is fair: same rate, temperature, cell format, material loading, cycle count, reporting unit, and failure criterion.

In Manusights reviews, the strongest submissions do not hide weak durability behind high initial metrics. They explain what the evidence proves and what it does not yet prove.

Check cycling and stability evidence that cannot support the application claim before submitting to Journal of Energy Storage →

Benchmark table that compares against convenient rather than state-of-the-art systems

The third pattern is weak benchmarking. Journal of Energy Storage submissions commonly include a table of peer results, but the selected comparators are old, low-performing, or mismatched to the manuscript's storage class.

Editors can see when a battery manuscript avoids recent Journal of Power Sources or Energy Storage Materials comparators, when a thermal storage paper compares across incompatible phase-change materials, or when a systems paper mixes laboratory and field-scale results without normalization. The benchmark table should be a manuscript component, not an afterthought.

It should include recent peer systems, consistent units, cycle count, operating conditions, and honest caveats. The cover letter should use that table to explain the real advance, whether it is stability, integration, cost, safety, power density, thermal response, or control strategy. A Journal of Energy Storage system performance readiness check can identify whether the package supports a submission.

Clarivate JCR 2024 bibliometric data places Journal of Energy Storage among top energy-storage journals.

Check benchmark table that compares against convenient rather than state of the art sy before submitting to Journal of Energy Storage →

In pre-submission diagnostic work for top energy-storage journals, we consistently see four signals that distinguish strong submissions from weak ones. First, the storage-system advance must be substantive beyond performance improvements. Second, cycling and stability data should accompany any practical claim. Third, benchmarking against state-of-the-art storage systems should be explicit. Fourth, performance metrics (capacity, energy/power density, efficiency) should be reported comprehensively.

For Journal Of Energy Storage-targeted manuscripts, the single most consistent feedback class we deliver in pre-submission diagnostics for Journal of Energy Storage is the incremental-versus-substantive distinction. Journal of Energy Storage editors expect substantive storage-system advances. Submissions framed as "we modified material X to achieve Y improvement in capacity" routinely receive "where is the system advance?" feedback during desk screening.

We coach authors to lead with the substantive storage contribution and frame the experimental work in service of that contribution. Papers framed as "we developed a new storage architecture that addresses limitation X by exploiting principle Y, demonstrating cycling stability over Z cycles" receive better editorial traction.

The same logic applies across energy-storage journals: editors are operating with limited slot inventory, and the submissions that get traction lead with the substantive system advance.

For Journal Of Energy Storage-targeted manuscripts, beyond the rubric checks, three pre-submission diagnostic patterns recur most often in the manuscripts we review for Journal of Energy Storage. First, manuscripts where the abstract reports initial performance without cycling data are flagged at desk for stability gaps. We recommend the abstract's central sentences include both initial performance and long-term cycling evidence.

Second, manuscripts where benchmarking is reported as "compared to literature values" rather than against specific named systems are flagged for benchmarking gaps. We recommend explicitly comparing against 2-3 state-of-the-art systems. Third, manuscripts that lack engagement with Journal of Energy Storage's recent issues are at risk of being told the contribution doesn't fit the publication conversation.

For Journal Of Energy Storage-targeted manuscripts, the strongest manuscripts we coach distinguish themselves on three operational behaviors. First, they confine the cover letter to one page and use it to make the case for fit, contribution, and significance, not to summarize the abstract. Second, they include a one-sentence elevator pitch in the cover letter's opening that the editor can use when discussing the manuscript internally.

Third, they identify the specific recent papers in the journal that this manuscript builds on and the specific competing or contradicting work; this signals the authors are operating inside the publication conversation rather than outside it.