Renewable Sustainable Energy Reviews Submission Process

The current ScienceDirect surfaces give several process-relevant signals authors should keep separate from Manusights interpretation:

In Manusights pre-submission work with RSER packages, we read the submission process as a connected editorial object: article type, title, abstract, cover letter, literature-search logic, synthesis tables, author metadata, declarations, suggested reviewers, and the first claim the editor will see in Editorial Manager. The manuscript may be a strong energy paper and still be process-weak if those pieces imply different article identities.

Article type is not a dropdown-only choice. The official guide says authors are responsible for choosing the correct article type and should state it in the cover letter. We see process trouble when the portal record says Review article, the methods section behaves like original modeling, the results section foregrounds one case study, and the cover letter claims a significant review component without showing how the literature is actually analyzed. That mismatch makes the editor's first routing decision harder.

Critical thinking must appear before the discussion. RSER's mission emphasizes relevant critical thinking for renewable and sustainable energy, not only coverage. A manuscript that saves comparison, critique, tradeoff analysis, or policy/system consequence for the final pages makes the editor work too hard. We treat that as process risk because it affects whether the paper moves to reviewer invitation, not merely whether the prose is polished.

Declarations and supplementary files are part of triage. Elsevier's guide is explicit about authorship, competing interests, funding sources, generative-AI declaration, supplementary material, and post-submission limits on authorship changes. For RSER, those fields interact with a large review package: search strategy, literature tables, data availability, figure files, and supplementary evidence need to describe the same analytical project.

Sibling-journal ambiguity is common. The paper can be publishable and still belong somewhere else. Applied Energy may fit system-level original research. Energy may fit a broader energy-engineering paper. Renewable Energy may fit technology-specific original research. Journal of Cleaner Production may fit sustainability production and circular-economy framing. The process page exists because authors need to catch that routing problem before an Elsevier decision does.

ScienceDirect currently lists journal-level medians of about 2 days to first decision, 97 days to decision after review, 172 days to acceptance, and 9 days from acceptance to online publication. Those numbers are useful because they show the first editorial screen can be very fast. They are not a guarantee. A complex or ambiguous scope case can take longer if reviewer fit, article type, or transfer routing is unclear.

The process starts before you click submit. RSER is not only checking whether files can be uploaded. The editor is checking whether the record tells one coherent literature-led energy story.

Before opening the record, have these pieces ready:

• manuscript file with article type, title, abstract, word count, figures, tables, references, and section structure aligned
• cover letter that states the article type and explains why the paper is an RSER contribution now
• literature-search or evidence-selection method that supports the synthesis rather than looking decorative
• comparison table, taxonomy, framework, or evidence map that shows critical thinking early
• author list and order confirmed with all affiliations and corresponding-author details
• conflict-of-interest, funding, ethics statement if relevant, data availability, and generative-AI declaration if relevant
• supplementary files labeled so the editor and reviewers can see what each file supports
• suggested reviewers who can assess both the energy domain and the review/synthesis method

The official guide says editors generally will not consider authorship changes once a manuscript has been submitted. That makes the author list a process issue, not an administrative afterthought. Do not use the submission record to settle authorship.

The first check is administrative, but it is not trivial. Elsevier and RSER need a record that can be handled without policy confusion.

Typical early checks include:

• author names in the manuscript matching the submission-system entries
• author order, corresponding-author role, affiliations, and emails final enough for the record
• conflict-of-interest, funding, ethics statement if relevant, data-availability, and generative-AI declarations present
• manuscript and supplementary files opening correctly
• article type matching the cover letter, abstract, and manuscript structure
• figures, tables, highlights if used, and supplementary evidence labeled clearly
• suggested reviewers entered with enough energy-domain and synthesis-method relevance

A common process mistake is to treat these as clerical fields. At RSER, metadata and files also shape triage. If the record says Review article, the abstract reads like a standard modeling paper, the cover letter says "comprehensive review," and the supplement contains only extra simulations, the package is administratively complete but editorially hard to route.

The first editorial screen asks whether the manuscript deserves external review as a Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews paper. For RSER, that means the editor is not only checking topic relevance. The editor is checking article type, synthesis value, critical thinking, and whether the paper helps research, private-sector, policy, or decision-maker readers understand an energy problem better.

The strongest packages make these signals agree:

The editor can return a paper quickly if the record reads like literature accumulation rather than critical synthesis. For planning, treat 1 to 14 days as a normal triage range, with complex or ambiguous article-type cases taking longer. The upload sequence is not hard; the first screen is expensive to misunderstand.

A fast first decision at RSER is usually an editorial suitability outcome. It does not mean the paper received full peer review in a few days.

Read the status path:

• Submitted to With Editor to Decision: likely editor triage, administrative return, scope return, article-type return, or transfer consideration.
• Submitted to Under Review to Decision: more likely external review or reviewer invitation plus editor synthesis.
• With Editor for several weeks: possible reviewer matching, scope uncertainty, article-type discussion, or editor availability.
• Under Review for several months: reviewer invitation, active review, delayed reports, or editor synthesis.

The useful response to a fast return is not immediate resubmission. First identify whether the decision was about article type, literature-synthesis value, scope, declarations, authorship, or a better Elsevier transfer route.

If the manuscript is sent out, reviewers are usually checking more than whether the literature list is long. RSER reviews are expected to help readers judge renewable and sustainable energy evidence, tradeoffs, and decision consequences.

Elsevier's guide describes RSER as using a single-blind, single-anonymized peer review process, with editor suitability assessment before suitable submissions are typically sent to at least two reviewers. For authors, that means the manuscript does not need double-anonymous file preparation, but the author record, conflicts, reviewer suggestions, and literature-selection logic still need to survive scrutiny.

Reviewers often test:

• whether the review takes a defensible position rather than summarizing papers chronologically
• whether the article type is coherent throughout the manuscript
• whether the literature search and selection method support the claims being made
• whether system boundaries, life-cycle assumptions, economics, deployment context, or policy constraints are comparable
• whether figures and tables synthesize the field rather than decorate the manuscript
• whether the article fits RSER better than Applied Energy, Energy, Renewable Energy, Energy Policy, Journal of Cleaner Production, or a narrower specialist venue

The paper can be technically sound and still draw a hard revision if it does not organize evidence for renewable and sustainable energy readers.

Elsevier's Article Transfer Service can matter after a decline. A transfer offer is not a failure by itself. It may save time if the receiving journal fits the manuscript better. It is a mistake only when authors accept a transfer without checking whether the new journal's readership matches the paper.

In Manusights pre-submission work on RSER packages, we see four process failures before the scientific debate starts.

• Article type drift: the manuscript claims to be a review but behaves like original research with a long literature section.
• Synthesis hidden behind coverage: the paper has many references but no early analytical question, comparison frame, or critical claim.
• Declaration record treated as cleanup: authorship, conflicts, funding, data availability, or generative-AI declaration details remain unsettled when the record opens.
• Wrong energy sibling: the paper is real scholarship but better suited to Applied Energy, Energy, Renewable Energy, Energy Policy, or Journal of Cleaner Production.

The article type drifts during upload

The portal asks for an article type, but the editor reads the whole package. If the abstract, methods, figures, and cover letter imply different types, the record feels unstable. The process fix is to make the chosen type visible in the cover letter, first paragraph, evidence architecture, and section order.

The synthesis is hidden behind coverage

RSER readers do not need another long bibliography unless the paper changes how they interpret the field. A table of papers is not enough. The process fix is to make the synthesis question visible before the editor reaches the middle of the manuscript.

The declaration record is not final

Elsevier's author guide makes authorship, competing interests, funding, data availability, generative-AI declaration, and supplementary material real submission constraints. If those fields are unstable, the package is not process-ready even when the manuscript argument is promising.

The paper belongs in a neighboring energy journal

Some papers are strong but wrong for this process. Original system optimization may fit Applied Energy. A broad energy-engineering paper may fit Energy. Technology-specific original research may fit Renewable Energy. Cleaner-production or circular-economy framing may fit Journal of Cleaner Production. The process can fail because the first editor sees the wrong audience.

Check whether your RSER article type is coherent →

Check whether the synthesis is visible before upload →

Check whether your declaration and supplement record is complete →

This guide tells you what the process tests before and after Editorial Manager submission. The review tells you whether your paper passes that process screen before the upload becomes the editor's first impression. Manusights reviews are read by multiple expert reviewers, include a 60-day money-back guarantee, and we do not train models on submitted manuscripts.

Last verified July 2026 against ScienceDirect author guidance, the ScienceDirect journal and insights pages, Elsevier Editorial Manager routing, and the current Manusights RSER cluster. Publisher instructions, portal fields, and timing medians can change, so use official Elsevier pages for the live upload record.