Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews Submission Guide

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

Source: RSER author guidelines.

Use this page when deciding:

• whether the proposed review has an original organizing structure
• whether the scope justifies comprehensive treatment
• whether reference coverage is comprehensive
• whether quantitative synthesis tables are sufficient
• how the review distinguishes from recent RSER coverage

• a clear original taxonomy, framework, or quantitative synthesis structuring the review
• comprehensive reference coverage of foundational and recent state-of-the-art papers
• comparison tables organizing the literature by technology, performance, cost, or geographical scope
• a discussion of open challenges and future research directions
• a cover letter establishing the original organizing contribution

In our pre-submission review work for energy reviews, the single feedback that consistently lands at first round at RSER is a request to add quantitative comparison tables. Editors look for normalized comparisons of efficiency, cost per kWh, lifecycle emissions, or geographical deployment statistics. Reviewers consistently observe that purely qualitative reviews of renewable-energy technologies fail to support the kinds of policy or technology-roadmap conclusions readers expect from RSER. The pattern we see most often is authors who survey 200 papers narratively without organizing the data into a comparable table; that is the gap that turns a 20-30 page submission into a 4-week revision cycle.

• Literature review without original taxonomy.
• Scope overlap with recent RSER pieces.
• Missing quantitative synthesis.
• Narrow specialist focus.

RSER is Elsevier's flagship renewable-energy review journal.

Original organization expected: RSER reviews must contribute taxonomy, framework, or quantitative synthesis.

The 3-5 year topic-timing window: RSER editors check the journal's recent issues.

Quantitative emphasis: RSER reviews typically include performance comparisons, cost trajectories, or lifecycle analysis tables.

The strongest RSER cover letters establish:

• the original taxonomy or framework in one sentence
• the comprehensive scope
• the quantitative synthesis included
• distinction from recent RSER pieces

• Is Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews a good journal?
• Energy & Environmental Science submission guide

Before upload, run your manuscript through an RSER taxonomy and reference-coverage readiness check.

In our pre-submission review work with renewable-energy reviews targeting RSER, three patterns generate the most consistent rejections.

In our experience, roughly 40% of RSER rejections trace to literature-review framing without original organization. In our experience, roughly 25% involve scope overlap with recent RSER pieces. In our experience, roughly 20% arise from missing quantitative synthesis.

• Literature review framing without original organizing structure. RSER editors look for taxonomy, framework, or quantitative synthesis. We observe submissions framed as "comprehensive review of [topic]" without original contribution routinely rejected. SciRev community data on RSER consistently shows the original-structure requirement as the dominant filter.

• Scope overlap with recent RSER pieces. Editors check the journal's recent issues. We see submissions on topics covered in RSER within 3-5 years routinely rejected unless a clearly distinct angle is articulated.

• Missing quantitative synthesis. RSER reviewers expect comparison tables, cost analyses, or lifecycle data. We find that purely qualitative reviews are routinely returned with quantitative-synthesis requests. A RSER taxonomy and reference-coverage readiness check can identify whether the package supports a submission.

Clarivate JCR 2024 bibliometric data places RSER among top energy review journals. SciRev author-reported data confirms 4-8 week first-decision windows.