Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews Acceptance Rate
Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews does not publish a strong official acceptance rate. The better submission question is whether the manuscript is a genuinely analytical review with broad energy value.
Senior Researcher, Oncology & Cell Biology
Author context
Specializes in manuscript preparation and peer review strategy for oncology and cell biology, with deep experience evaluating submissions to Nature Medicine, JCO, Cancer Cell, and Cell-family journals.
Journal evaluation
Want the full journal picture?
See scope, selectivity, submission context, and what editors actually want before you decide whether the journal is realistic.
Quick answer: there is no strong official RSER acceptance-rate number you should treat as exact. The better submission question is whether the manuscript is a genuinely analytical review with broad energy value.
If the draft is really original research, a narrow descriptive survey, or a literature summary without strong synthesis, the unofficial percentage is not the real issue. The fit is.
What you can say honestly about the acceptance rate
The publisher guidance does not provide a stable official acceptance-rate figure that is strong enough to use as a precise planning number.
What is stable is the review model:
- RSER is review-only
- the journal is highly visible in energy
- fit depends on synthesis quality, breadth, and timeliness
- the strongest papers offer real analytical value, not just literature summary
That is the planning surface authors should actually use.
What the journal is really screening for
Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews is usually asking:
- does this review synthesize a consequential energy topic well?
- does it add critical judgment rather than list papers?
- is it current enough to matter now?
- is it broad enough to interest the wider renewable and sustainable energy readership?
Those are the questions that matter more than a rumored percentage.
The better decision question
For RSER, the useful question is:
If I removed the review framing, would there still be a real synthesis contribution here, or just a long literature summary?
If the answer is mostly summary, the journal is a poor fit.
Where authors usually get this wrong
The common misses are:
- centering strategy around an unofficial percentage
- treating the journal like a high-impact fallback for primary energy research
- submitting outdated or duplicative review coverage
- mistaking literature accumulation for analytical synthesis
Those are fit problems before they are rate problems.
What to use instead of a guessed percentage
If you are deciding whether to pursue this lane, these pages are more useful than an unofficial rate:
- is my paper ready for Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews
- is Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews a good journal
- Applied Energy
- how to choose a journal for your paper
Together, they tell you whether the article is truly a review, whether the synthesis quality is high enough, and whether a primary-research journal would be more honest.
Practical verdict
The honest answer to "what is the Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews acceptance rate?" is that there is no strong official number you should treat as exact.
The useful answer is:
- yes, the journal is selective
- no, a guessed percentage is not the right planning tool
- use review quality, scope fit, and synthesis value instead
If you want help checking whether this manuscript reads like a real RSER review before submission, a free Manusights scan is the best next step.
- Is my paper ready for Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews, Manusights.
- Is Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews a good journal, Manusights.
Sources
Reference library
Use the core publishing datasets alongside this guide
This article answers one part of the publishing decision. The reference library covers the recurring questions that usually come next: how selective journals are, how long review takes, and what the submission requirements look like across journals.
Dataset / reference guide
Peer Review Timelines by Journal
Reference-grade journal timeline data that authors, labs, and writing centers can cite when discussing realistic review timing.
Dataset / benchmark
Biomedical Journal Acceptance Rates
A field-organized acceptance-rate guide that works as a neutral benchmark when authors are deciding how selective to target.
Reference table
Journal Submission Specs
A high-utility submission table covering word limits, figure caps, reference limits, and formatting expectations.
Before you upload
Want the full journal picture?
Scope, selectivity, what editors want, common rejection reasons, and submission context, all in one place.
These pages attract evaluation intent more than upload-ready intent.
Anthropic Privacy Partner. Zero-retention manuscript processing.
Where to go next
Supporting reads
Conversion step
Want the full journal picture?
These pages attract evaluation intent more than upload-ready intent.