RSER Formatting Requirements: Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews Guide

RSER publishes primarily review articles, though it also accepts some original research articles with a review component.

The ~15,000-word limit for reviews includes the main text, table content, and figure captions but typically excludes the reference list. RSER reviews often cite 150-300+ references, so the total manuscript length can be considerably longer than 15,000 words.

This is one of the more generous word limits in science publishing, reflecting the expectation that RSER reviews should be thorough and authoritative. However, length alone doesn't make a good review. Editors are looking for papers that synthesize the literature and provide critical analysis, not just catalog existing studies. A 15,000-word review that's essentially an annotated bibliography will be desk rejected.

Research Articles at RSER need to have a substantial review component. A pure experimental paper without literature synthesis doesn't fit RSER's scope, even if the topic is renewable energy. The journal's name includes "Reviews" for a reason. If your paper is primarily experimental, consider journals like Energy, Applied Energy, or Energy Conversion and Management instead.

RSER follows Elsevier's general abstract guidelines with journal-specific expectations.

• Word limit: 200-300 words for reviews, 200-250 for research articles
• Structure: Unstructured (single paragraph)
• Citations: Not allowed
• Abbreviations: Avoid or define on first use
• Quantitative results: Include where possible

The abstract should cover the review's scope, the methodology for literature selection (for systematic reviews), the main findings, and the implications for the field. RSER editors appreciate abstracts that indicate what gap the review fills and what new insights it provides.

Highlights (mandatory): 3-5 bullet points, each 85 characters or fewer including spaces. Highlights appear prominently on the ScienceDirect article landing page and in Elsevier's promotional emails. They're read more than the abstract by many researchers, so make them count.

Common highlight mistakes:

• Exceeding 85 characters (the system will enforce this)
• Writing vague highlights ("A comprehensive review of solar energy is presented")
• Restating the abstract instead of making distinct points
• Missing quantitative findings that belong in highlights

Keywords: 4-6 keywords required. Choose terms that complement the title rather than duplicating it. If your title mentions "solar photovoltaic," your keywords should include related terms like "MPPT," "degradation," or "techno-economic analysis" rather than repeating "solar photovoltaic."

Energy reviews are data-rich, and RSER papers typically include numerous figures and tables comparing technologies, costs, efficiencies, and policy frameworks.

Figure specifications:

Graphical abstract specifications:

• Minimum size: 1328 x 531 pixels (width x height)
• Resolution: 300 dpi minimum
• Format: TIFF, EPS, PDF, or JPEG
• Should summarize the review's scope and key findings visually
• Appears in ScienceDirect search results

Common figure types in RSER:

• Technology comparison charts (bar, radar, or bubble plots)
• Cost and efficiency trend lines over time
• Process flow diagrams for energy systems
• Geographic maps of resource potential or deployment
• Sankey diagrams for energy flows
• System architecture diagrams

Table formatting:

• Tables should have headers for every column
• Use Elsevier's table format (horizontal rules only)
• Editable format, not images
• Large comparison tables are common and expected in RSER reviews
• Include units in column headers

RSER reviews often feature extensive comparison tables (e.g., comparing 50 solar cell technologies by efficiency, cost, and durability). These tables are valuable and editors expect them. Format them clearly with consistent units and indicate the data source for each entry.

RSER uses Elsevier's standard numbered reference style.

In-text citations: Numbers in square brackets, e.g., [1], [2,3], [4-7]. Numbered sequentially by order of first appearance.

Reference list format:

[1] A.B. Author, C.D. Author, E.F. Author, Title of article, J. Abbrev. Name Volume (Year) Pages.

Key formatting details:

• Author initials before surname, no periods between initials (A.B. Author)
• All authors listed (no "et al." cutoff in the reference list)
• Article title included
• Journal name abbreviated per ISO 4
• Volume number, year in parentheses, page range
• DOIs strongly encouraged
• For books: Author, Title, Edition, Publisher, City, Year

Reference volume: RSER reviews typically cite 100-300 references. The journal doesn't impose a formal cap, but extremely long reference lists (400+) may draw editorial comment. Every reference should serve a purpose. For systematic reviews, the reference list naturally grows large because you're documenting all included studies.

Reference currency: Energy research moves quickly. RSER editors and reviewers check whether your review includes recent literature. A review submitted in 2026 that stops citing papers from 2023 will be criticized for being outdated. Aim to include literature up to the submission date.

Use a reference manager (EndNote, Zotero, Mendeley) with Elsevier's numbered style. Manual formatting of 200+ references is impractical and error-prone.

RSER supports supplementary material through Elsevier's standard system.

What goes in Supplementary Material:

• Extended data tables (full datasets behind summary tables in the main text)
• Additional figures (comparative plots for sub-categories not covered in main text)
• Detailed search methodology (for systematic reviews: search strings, inclusion/exclusion criteria, PRISMA flowchart)
• Raw data or processed datasets
• Code for meta-analyses or techno-economic models

Requirements:

• Referenced in the main text
• Submitted as separate files
• Self-contained with its own figure and table numbering
• No length or size limit specified

Data sharing: Elsevier supports data sharing through Mendeley Data and other repositories. For reviews, the most useful supplementary data is often the extracted dataset behind your comparison tables. Making this available as a spreadsheet enables other researchers to build on your work.

These are the details that experienced RSER authors know:

Reviews must be reviews, not annotated bibliographies. RSER's most common reason for desk rejection isn't formatting; it's papers that list studies without synthesizing or critically analyzing them. Editors look for papers that identify trends, resolve contradictions, highlight research gaps, and provide a roadmap for future work.

Highlights are taken seriously. Unlike some journals where highlights are an afterthought, RSER editors check highlights for quality and specificity. Generic highlights like "This paper reviews solar energy technologies" are insufficient.

Graphical abstract boosts visibility. While not strictly mandatory, papers with graphical abstracts get more views on ScienceDirect. The investment in creating a clear graphical abstract pays off in citations and readership.

Systematic review methodology is expected. RSER increasingly expects reviews to follow systematic review methodology, especially for papers covering well-studied topics. This means documenting your search strategy, databases searched, search terms, inclusion/exclusion criteria, and the number of papers screened/included. A PRISMA flowchart is expected for systematic reviews.

Elsevier's author workflow. RSER uses Elsevier's Editorial Manager for submissions. The system requires separate uploads for the manuscript, figures, highlights, graphical abstract, and supplementary files. Have all components ready before starting the submission.

Journal scope is specific. RSER covers renewable energy, sustainable energy, and energy efficiency. Papers on fossil fuel technologies (even improvements to fossil fuel efficiency) are generally out of scope unless they're part of a transition or hybrid system. Nuclear energy falls in a gray area and depends on the angle.

Multi-author review coordination. RSER reviews often have 5-10 authors, each contributing a section. Ensure consistent formatting, terminology, and reference style across all sections. Inconsistency between sections is a clear sign of poor coordination and makes a bad impression on editors.

These trip up RSER authors:

1. Highlights exceeding 85 characters. The ScienceDirect system enforces this limit. Count characters before submitting.

1. Abstract without quantitative content. For reviews that include meta-analysis or systematic comparison, the abstract should include key quantitative findings, not just qualitative statements.

1. Inconsistent reference formatting. With 150-300 references, inconsistencies are almost inevitable without a reference manager. Common issues: mixing abbreviated and full journal names, inconsistent author name formatting, missing DOIs for some references.

1. Missing systematic review methodology. For papers claiming to be systematic reviews, the search methodology must be documented. Missing PRISMA flowcharts or undocumented inclusion criteria will be flagged.

1. Figures as low-resolution screenshots. Comparison charts and technology diagrams that are screenshots of other papers' figures are both low quality and potentially copyright-infringing. Recreate figures using your own data and analysis.

In our pre-submission review work with manuscripts targeting Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, four patterns generate the most consistent desk-rejection outcomes.

Our internal analysis shows that RSER formatting failures are usually symptoms of a deeper scope problem. When highlights cannot be written in 85 characters, when the graphical abstract turns into a crowded topic map, or when the reference list lacks recent policy and cost literature, the issue is often that the review has not yet found its synthesis claim.

We observe the same pattern in manuscript checks for RSER: authors treat the Elsevier requirements as a final upload checklist, but editors and reviewers use those files to test whether the review has a clear contribution. SciRev data and author reports support that distinction, because papers delayed at the front end are often not missing a document so much as missing a readable review argument. In practice, the fastest submissions have highlights that state findings, not topics; a graphical abstract that shows one synthesis path; and tables that combine technical performance with cost, policy, or deployment context.

Review scope is too narrow for a comprehensive review journal. RSER is a review journal that publishes comprehensive overviews of renewable energy topics. Manuscripts that cover a narrow sub-topic without situating it within the broader renewable energy landscape are considered too specialized for RSER's scope. Editors evaluate whether the review covers the field comprehensively enough for a reader entering the area to gain a complete picture. Systematic literature reviews with narrow bibliographic scope, without synthesis across the broader energy transition literature, are redirected to more specialist journals.

Highlights not prepared or exceeding the 85-character limit. As an Elsevier journal, RSER requires 3 to 5 Highlights, each under 85 characters including spaces, submitted as a separate file. This requirement applies to all article types. Manuscripts without a Highlights file, or where individual highlights exceed the character limit, are corrected before peer review. Highlights should capture the core findings or contributions of the review, not reproduce the title.

Literature coverage outdated or missing key recent publications. RSER reviewers evaluate whether the review covers the literature through a recent date, typically within 12 to 18 months of the submission date for a rapidly evolving field like renewable energy. Reviews that cite literature primarily from 5 or more years ago without explaining the absence of more recent publications are asked to update the literature coverage. For topics where policy or technology developments are rapid (grid integration, battery storage, solar efficiency records), reviewers expect very recent citations.

Economic analysis or techno-economic assessment not included for technology reviews. RSER reviews that cover energy technologies are expected to include a techno-economic assessment or at minimum a cost comparison section. Reviews of photovoltaic materials, wind turbines, hydrogen production, or storage technologies that cover only technical performance without addressing cost trends, levelized cost of energy, or economic viability are considered incomplete by RSER reviewers. The journal's scope explicitly includes sustainability analysis alongside technical performance.

A Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews formatting and readiness check evaluates manuscript structure, literature comprehensiveness, and techno-economic coverage against these desk-rejection patterns before you submit.

Treat RSER formatting as an editorial readiness test. If the highlights state specific synthesis findings, the graphical abstract has one readable logic path, and the literature table includes recent technical, economic, and policy sources, the manuscript is much more likely to look like an RSER review rather than a long specialist survey.