Rejected from Renewable Energy? Where to Submit Next

Use these as routing checks, not as automatic resubmission reasons.

This page was researched from the current ScienceDirect Renewable Energy journal page, Renewable Energy guide for authors, Renewable Energy insights page, current ScienceDirect pages for Applied Energy and Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, existing Manusights pages for Solar Energy, Applied Energy, Energy, Energy Conversion and Management, Journal of Energy Storage, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, and Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, plus Manusights review patterns across energy-submission drafts.

The non-obvious layer is the center-of-gravity diagnosis. A rejected Renewable Energy manuscript may still be publishable, but the next venue depends on whether the paper is a renewable-system contribution, a solar-specialist paper, an applied energy-system decision paper, a broad energy-engineering paper, a conversion-and-management paper, a storage paper, a hydrogen paper, a review/synthesis paper, or a materials/device paper not yet ready for an energy journal.

Do not treat every rejection as a reason to downgrade. Sometimes the manuscript's strongest next move is to name the correct energy audience.

Use these labels to turn the rejection into a repair plan.

Renewable-system gap: the abstract, first figure, methods, and cover letter do not make the renewable energy system, component, operating condition, or deployment consequence visible.

Conversion-evidence gap: the paper characterizes a material, catalyst, membrane, controller, model, coating, or device, but does not measure converted energy, generated power, efficiency, yield, storage behavior, system performance, or renewable-use consequence.

Benchmark gap: the comparison is selective, noncurrent, unit-inconsistent, or based on operating conditions that are not comparable to the state of the art.

Quantitative-analysis gap: the manuscript claims renewable-energy impact without enough uncertainty, sensitivity, cost, LCA, resource, irradiation, wind, feedstock, load-profile, lifetime, degradation, or validation detail.

Audience-center gap: the manuscript is technically sound but belongs to Solar Energy, Applied Energy, Energy, Energy Conversion and Management, Journal of Energy Storage, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, RSER, or a specialty materials/device venue rather than Renewable Energy.

These labels prevent cosmetic retargeting. A renewable-system gap is not fixed by adding "renewable" to the title. A conversion-evidence gap is not fixed by a stronger cover letter. A benchmark gap is not fixed by more citations. A review-format gap is not fixed by shortening the manuscript.

The strongest retargeting decision is the one that makes the abstract and first figure easier, not harder, for the next editor to classify.

Solar Energy is cleaner when the rejected manuscript is solar-specific. If the data, assumptions, benchmarks, and readership are really about solar resource, photovoltaic conversion, solar thermal applications, solar buildings, solar desalination, solar fuels, or solar-system design, a solar specialist journal may give the work a fairer review.

Submit toward Solar Energy if:

• the title and abstract are naturally solar-specific
• the benchmark table compares against solar technologies under solar operating conditions
• irradiation, temperature, spectrum, collector, PV, solar thermal, building, or solar-resource assumptions drive the result
• the first figure shows a solar system rather than a cross-renewable framework
• the Renewable Energy rejection pointed toward a narrower solar audience

Do not move there if the manuscript's real value is applied system operation, grid economics, storage sizing, or cross-renewable integration.

Applied Energy is stronger when the manuscript is about applied energy-system decision value: deployment, operation, optimization, economics, multi-energy systems, grid integration, storage dispatch, building-system decisions, net-zero transition, or practical implementation.

Energy is stronger when the manuscript is broad energy engineering, resource assessment, system analysis, review, or evaluation that is not specifically a renewable-technology paper.

Submit toward Applied Energy if the paper answers "what should operators, planners, engineers, or policymakers do?" Submit toward Energy if the contribution is broad energy analysis rather than a technology-specific renewable advance.

Do not use either route as a generic fallback. Applied Energy will punish weak deployment logic. Energy will punish device-level work with no system-level framing.

Energy Conversion and Management is a cleaner route when conversion, storage, management, exergy, cost, optimization, or system-consequence evidence is the center, and the renewable context is one part of a broader energy-system contribution.

Submit toward ECM if:

• the core claim is about conversion or management rather than renewable technology alone
• exergy, cost, optimization, system boundary, or verification is central
• the manuscript compares renewable and non-renewable system configurations
• the abstract can state an energy-system decision consequence
• the Renewable Energy rejection exposed weak renewable-specific fit but strong conversion/management fit

Do not move there if the paper is purely solar, wind, biomass, geothermal, hydropower, or ocean energy technology with a specialized renewable audience.

Journal of Energy Storage is often cleaner when storage is the real contribution: battery, thermal storage, hydrogen storage, supercapacitor, degradation, safety, sizing, grid-storage operation, or storage materials with storage-performance evidence.

International Journal of Hydrogen Energy is often cleaner when hydrogen is the real contribution: hydrogen production, storage, transport, fuel cells, electrolyzers, hydrogen economy, safety, infrastructure, or integration with renewables.

If the Renewable Energy version uses storage or hydrogen mainly as a support element, keep the broader renewable-system story. If storage or hydrogen is the reason reviewers care, move the paper to the specialist audience and rewrite the package accordingly.

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews is not a fallback for rejected original research. It is a review and synthesis venue. Move there only when the manuscript is a broad, current, original review with a clear taxonomy, quantitative synthesis, evidence map, or decision framework that justifies a review-journal readership.

Specialty venues may be better when the rejected paper is mainly:

• photovoltaic materials or device physics
• wind-turbine control or structural health monitoring
• biomass conversion or bioresource technology
• geothermal reservoir engineering
• hydropower or ocean-energy engineering
• power electronics or grid control
• catalyst, membrane, coating, or materials characterization
• forecasting or optimization methods
• techno-economic or policy analysis without technology evidence

The narrower venue is not always a downgrade. It can be the journal where the right reviewers understand the system boundary, operating condition, and benchmark.

In our review work with Renewable Energy manuscripts, Manusights reads the rejected package as a routing problem across the title, abstract, highlights, first figure, system-boundary diagram, renewable-resource assumptions, methods, model inputs, conversion or generation evidence, benchmark table, cost or LCA section, uncertainty analysis, data statement, cover letter, and decision letter. The question is not "which energy journal is easier?" It is whether the paper failed as a Renewable Energy paper, a Solar Energy paper, an Applied Energy paper, a broad Energy paper, an ECM paper, a storage paper, a hydrogen paper, a review paper, or a materials/device paper.

Source limitation: Elsevier and ScienceDirect define public scope, article preparation, submission portal, timeline metrics, and publishing options. They do not publish private manuscript-level rejection notes. The patterns below combine official-source facts with Manusights submission analysis and should be checked against the actual rejection letter.

• Renewable Energy pattern 1: renewable label without measured renewable consequence. The manuscript studies a material, catalyst, membrane, coating, controller, forecast model, or device, but the abstract and first figure do not show converted energy, generated power, efficiency, system performance, storage effect, cost, or LCA consequence. If the evidence is mostly device or materials characterization, a specialist venue may be cleaner. If Renewable Energy remains the target, the methods, figures, benchmark table, and cover letter need to show renewable-system consequence.

Check whether your rejected manuscript has enough measured renewable consequence →.

• Renewable Energy pattern 2: benchmark table is not state-of-the-art. Authors compare against one baseline, one weather file, one operating point, one device architecture, or old renewable-system literature. The paper may still be technically useful, but a reviewer cannot tell whether the claimed gain matters. This rejection reason travels to Solar Energy, Applied Energy, Energy, ECM, Journal of Energy Storage, and IJHE unless the benchmark table is rebuilt.

Check whether your benchmark package will travel cleanly →.

• Renewable Energy pattern 3: quantitative assumptions are too thin. The title promises renewable-energy impact, but the methods do not make irradiation, wind speed, feedstock, load profile, resource data, temperature, pressure, degradation, lifetime, cost, LCA, validation, or uncertainty assumptions transparent enough. Applied Energy and Energy will not fix this weakness; they often raise the system-evidence bar.

Check whether your quantitative assumptions are reviewer-ready →.

• Renewable Energy pattern 4: the paper belongs to Solar Energy, Applied Energy, Energy, ECM, Journal of Energy Storage, IJHE, or RSER. Sometimes the science is good and the rejection is mostly routing. Solar-specific evidence belongs closer to Solar Energy. Applied deployment and economics belongs closer to Applied Energy. Broad energy analysis belongs closer to Energy. Conversion and management belongs closer to ECM. Storage belongs closer to Journal of Energy Storage. Hydrogen belongs closer to IJHE. Broad review synthesis belongs closer to RSER.

This guide tells you how to choose the next venue after Renewable Energy rejection; the review tells you whether your actual manuscript is ready for that next venue. Paid Manusights reviews include a 60-day money-back guarantee, and we do not train models on submitted manuscripts.

Elsevier transfer can save time, but it can also move the same weak framing into the next journal.

Before approving a transfer:

1. Check whether the receiving journal matches the manuscript's center of gravity.
2. Revise the title, abstract, highlights, first figure, benchmark table, and cover letter for the destination.
3. Decide whether conversion evidence, quantitative assumptions, benchmark fairness, uncertainty, cost, LCA, storage, or hydrogen evidence needs repair first.
4. Remove Renewable Energy-specific wording that no longer fits.
5. Check article type, open-access cost, word target, reference limit, review-invitation rules, and transfer timing.

A transfer is useful routing evidence, not acceptance.

Consider resubmission only when the editor invited it or the rejection reason is narrow and repairable. A serious resubmission needs more than polish.

Resubmit only when:

• the editor left that path open
• the renewable-system or component contribution is now visible
• measured conversion, generation, efficiency, cost, LCA, storage, or system-performance evidence is strong enough
• the benchmark table is fair and current
• quantitative assumptions, uncertainty, sensitivity, and validation are traceable
• the abstract, highlights, first figure, methods, data statement, and cover letter now tell the same story
• the manuscript no longer looks like a better fit for Solar Energy, Applied Energy, Energy, ECM, Journal of Energy Storage, IJHE, RSER, or a specialty venue

Do not resubmit if the editor clearly identified scope mismatch. Rebuild for the correct venue instead.

• Renewable Energy submission guide
• Solar Energy submission guide
• Applied Energy submission guide
• Energy submission guide
• Energy Conversion and Management submission guide
• Journal of Energy Storage submission guide
• International Journal of Hydrogen Energy submission guide
• Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews submission guide

This page does not claim to predict an editorial decision. It uses current public journal guidance, journal-page facts, and Manusights review patterns to help authors diagnose the rejection reason, repair evidence that will travel across journals, and choose a cleaner next route.

If the repaired manuscript still belongs at the same venue, use the Renewable Energy submission process to check Editorial Manager upload, technical checks, editor routing, review, revision, and production steps before resubmission.