RSER Cover Letter: What Editors Actually Need to See
RSER editors are screening for one thing above all: why does this topic need a new review? Your cover letter must answer that question in the first paragraph or the submission will be desk-rejected.
Senior Researcher, Chemistry
Author context
Specializes in manuscript preparation and peer review strategy for chemistry journals, with deep experience evaluating submissions to JACS, Angewandte Chemie, Chemical Reviews, and ACS-family journals.
Readiness scan
Find out if this manuscript is ready to submit.
Run the Free Readiness Scan before you submit. Catch the issues editors reject on first read.
How to use this page well
These pages work best when they behave like tools, not essays. Use the quick structure first, then apply it to the exact journal and manuscript situation.
Question | What to do |
|---|---|
Use this page for | Getting the structure, tone, and decision logic right before you send anything out. |
Most important move | Make the reviewer-facing or editor-facing ask obvious early rather than burying it in prose. |
Common mistake | Turning a practical page into a long explanation instead of a working template or checklist. |
Next step | Use the page as a tool, then adjust it to the exact manuscript and journal situation. |
Quick answer: a strong Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews cover letter justifies why the topic needs a new review right now. This is a review-only journal with an IF of 15.9 and a 15-20% acceptance rate -- the editor's first question is whether your review adds something that existing reviews do not.
What the official sources do and do not tell you
The official RSER pages describe the Elsevier submission process and scope, but they do not spell out how to justify a review's necessity in the cover letter.
What the editorial model does imply is clear:
- every submission must be a review, not original research
- the editor will check whether recent reviews already cover the same topic
- the cover letter must explain what has changed or what gap exists that makes a new review necessary
That means the entire cover letter pivots on one question: why now, and why this review?
What the editor is really screening for
At triage, the editor is usually asking:
- has this topic already been reviewed recently, and if so, what does this review add?
- is the scope well-defined, or is this a sprawling overview of an entire field?
- does the review synthesize and critically evaluate, or does it just summarize?
- is the energy or sustainability relevance direct and substantive?
A cover letter that answers the first question convincingly in the opening paragraph will survive triage. One that does not will be desk-rejected regardless of the review's quality.
A practical template you can adapt
Dear Editor,
We submit the manuscript "[TITLE]" for consideration as a
review article in Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews.
The most recent major review on [topic] was published in [year]
and covered [scope of that review]. Since then, [what has changed:
new technologies, new data, policy shifts, unresolved
contradictions]. Our review addresses this gap by [specific
contribution: synthesizing post-20XX literature, comparing
emerging approaches, resolving conflicting findings].
This review is relevant to RSER because it directly examines
[renewable energy technology, sustainability assessment method,
or energy policy dimension].
The work is original, not under consideration elsewhere, and
approved by all authors.
Sincerely,
[Name]The opening paragraph that positions your review against the most recent existing review is the single most important element.
Mistakes that make these letters weak
- never acknowledging existing reviews on the same topic, which signals the author has not checked
- framing the review as a general overview rather than a targeted synthesis that fills a specific gap
- submitting original research to a review-only journal
- using vague justifications like "this field is rapidly evolving" without specifying what has actually changed
- writing a cover letter that describes the review's structure instead of justifying its existence
These mistakes are the primary drivers of desk rejection at RSER.
What should drive the submission decision instead
Before polishing the letter further, confirm the journal fit. RSER publishes reviews only, and each review must justify its necessity against the existing review landscape. If you cannot name the most recent review on your topic and explain what yours adds, the submission is not ready. Check the journal's own author guidelines to verify alignment.
Practical verdict
The strongest RSER cover letters are focused, gap-driven, and honest about what has already been reviewed. They answer the editor's central question -- why does this review need to exist -- in the first paragraph.
So the useful takeaway is this: name the most recent competing review, state what has changed, and explain what your review synthesizes that theirs does not. A free Manusights scan is the fastest way to pressure-test that justification before submission.
Sources
- 1. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, guide for authors, Elsevier.
- 2. RSER aims and scope, Elsevier.
- 3. Clarivate Journal Citation Reports, RSER profile, 2025 edition.
- 4. Elsevier editorial process overview, Elsevier.
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.
Final step
Find out if this manuscript is ready to submit.
Run the Free Readiness Scan. See score, top issues, and journal-fit signals before you submit.
Anthropic Privacy Partner. Zero-retention manuscript processing.
Not ready to upload yet? See sample report
Where to go next
Supporting reads
Conversion step
Find out if this manuscript is ready to submit.
Anthropic Privacy Partner. Zero-retention manuscript processing.