What is the Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. JIF?

The JIF is 16.3 (2024 JCR). See the full year-by-year trend and category ranking in our Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews JIF analysis.

What is the acceptance rate of Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews?

Manusights currently treats ~30-40% as an estimate for Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews, not an official journal-published rate. One common reason papers fail is superficial literature overview without critical analysis.

How long does Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. take to review?

Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews typically takes ~120-180 days median, but timing varies by editor, field, and reviewer availability. Expect an editorial screen first, then pre-submission query (strongly recommended), then peer review.

All Journal Guides

Journal Guide

Publishing in Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews: Fit, Timeline & Submission Guide

Q: Is Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews a good journal?

Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews is a strong target if review must comprehensively cover topic literature. It is a weaker fit if simply summarizing papers is insufficient.

Q: Is Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews peer reviewed?

Yes, Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews is fully peer reviewed. All submissions undergo rigorous peer review by 2-3 energy experts assess literature comprehensiveness, critical analysis quality, novelty of synthesis, and forward perspective. Reviews are thorough. First decision 120-180 days..

Comprehensive energy reviews synthesizing pathways to sustainable energy systems

Should you submit here?

Submit if review must comprehensively cover topic literature. Be careful if simply summarizing papers is insufficient.

IF 16.3 · ~30-40% accepted · ~120-180 days median

Best fit if

Review must comprehensively cover topic literature

Not ideal if

Simply summarizing papers is insufficient

Also compare

Scienceand Energy

16.3

Impact Factor (2024)

~30-40%

Acceptance Rate

~120-180 days median

Time to First Decision

Submission guide

Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews Submission Guide: What Editors Screen Before Review

This Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews submission guide helps authors decide whether the manuscript is really an RSER paper and whether the literature contribution is strong enough.

Desk rejection

How to Avoid Desk Rejection at Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews

How to avoid desk rejection at Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews by proving complete coverage and analytical synthesis.

Review timeline

Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews Review Time: What Authors Can Actually Expect

Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews is not a fast-turn original-research venue. The useful question is whether the manuscript is truly review-led enough to justify the journal's longer editorial path.

What Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. Publishes

Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews published by Elsevier is the premier review journal for renewable and sustainable energy research. With JIF 16.3 and Q1 ranking in Energy & Fuels, RSER emphasizes comprehensive reviews synthesizing energy technology, policies, and systems toward sustainability. The journal publishes review articles covering renewable energy technologies, energy efficiency, energy storage, smart grids, and sustainable energy systems. Critically: RSER publishes reviews, not original research. Papers must comprehensively synthesize literature on energy topics. Superficial literature overviews without critical analysis and novel insights are less competitive. The journal seeks authoritative reviews providing new frameworks for understanding sustainable energy.

Renewable energy technologies: wind, solar, hydroelectric, geothermal assessment and comparison
Energy storage technologies: battery types, thermal storage, mechanical storage evaluation
Energy efficiency in buildings, industry, and transportation
Sustainable fuels: biofuels, hydrogen, synthetic fuels technology assessment
Smart grids and demand management
Energy policies and transition pathways
Lifecycle assessment and sustainability metrics for energy
Emerging technologies: fusion, advanced nuclear, novel renewable approaches

Editor Insight

“Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews publishes authoritative reviews synthesizing energy research toward sustainability. We seek comprehensive, critically analyzed reviews providing novel insights into energy technologies and transitions. The best reviews compare alternatives, identify gaps, and provide forward-looking recommendations.”

What Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. Editors Look For

Comprehensive literature synthesis with critical perspective

Review must comprehensively cover topic literature. But equally important: critical analysis. Compare technologies, identify gaps, assess limitations. Novel synthesis providing new understanding strengthens reviews significantly.

Authoritative assessment comparing multiple approaches or technologies

Strong reviews compare alternatives: wind vs solar, battery types, efficiency measures. Comparative analysis showing tradeoffs, pros/cons, and appropriate contexts for each approach adds value.

Forward-looking perspective with pathways and recommendations

Comprehensive reviews synthesize current state AND point toward future. What are promising directions? What research is needed? What policy changes required? Forward vision strengthens reviews.

Quantitative comparison and data synthesis when possible

Tabular comparisons of technology metrics, cost evolution, performance benchmarks strengthen reviews. Synthesizing quantitative data across studies more impactful than purely narrative review.

Balanced and fair assessment acknowledging strengths and limitations

Authoritative reviews honestly acknowledge technology strengths and limitations. Promoting favored technology while ignoring drawbacks damages credibility. Balanced assessment builds trust.

Why Papers Get Rejected

These patterns appear repeatedly in manuscripts that don't make it past Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.'s editorial review:

Superficial literature overview without critical analysis

Simply summarizing papers is insufficient. Critical analysis comparing approaches, identifying gaps, and assessing limitations is essential. Add analytical value beyond literature summary.

Narrow review covering only favored technology or approach

Authoritative reviews comprehensively cover field. Selective reviews promoting one technology while ignoring alternatives appear biased and lose credibility.

Lacking quantitative comparison or synthesis of key metrics

Tables comparing cost evolution, efficiency improvements, or deployment rates across technologies strengthen reviews. Purely narrative approach less impactful than data synthesis.

No forward-looking perspective or recommendations for future research/policy

Future-oriented synthesis adds value beyond literature summary. Identify research gaps, promising directions, policy needs. Vision strengthens review impact.

Outdated literature or missing recent developments

Reviews must be current. Fast-moving energy field means 2-3 year-old literature may be outdated. Comprehensive coverage of recent developments essential.

Does your manuscript avoid these patterns?

The Free Readiness Scan reads your full manuscript against Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.'s criteria and flags the specific issues most likely to cause rejection.

Run Free Readiness Scan →

Insider Tips from Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. Authors

Interdisciplinary reviews synthesizing energy, economics, and policy highly valued

Reviews linking technology, economic feasibility, and policy pathways toward sustainable transition are more impactful than pure technology reviews.

Reviews proposing novel frameworks or paradigms for understanding energy transitions

Truly novel synthesis providing new conceptual frameworks for understanding energy sustainability are highly valued and highly cited.

Comparative lifecycle assessment across energy technologies valued

Comprehensive reviews comparing environmental impacts (carbon, water, land, materials) across energy technologies provide important perspective for transition planning.

Reviews addressing energy equity and access in sustainable transitions

Energy justice perspectives, ensuring sustainable transitions benefit all communities, increasingly important in energy reviews.

Regional or national energy transition pathway reviews

Reviews examining specific region's or country's pathway to sustainable energy, considering resources, infrastructure, and policy context, increasingly competitive.

The Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. Submission Process

Pre-submission query (strongly recommended)

Before submission

Contact editor with review outline. RSER values pre-queries to assess topic appropriateness and avoid duplication. Detailed outline describing scope, novelty, and key contributions increases likelihood.

Manuscript preparation

Prep

10,000-15,000 words typical. Include comprehensive literature review, critical comparative analysis, quantitative data synthesis (tables/figures), identified research gaps, and forward-looking recommendations. Supporting information: extended data, additional comparisons.

Submission via Elsevier system

Day 0

Submit at https://www.editorialmanager.com/RSER/. Required: manuscript with comprehensive literature coverage, figures/tables comparing technologies or synthesizing data, cover letter highlighting novel synthesis and forward-looking perspective.

Editorial assessment

1-3 weeks

Editor assesses topic appropriateness, comprehensiveness, and novelty of synthesis. Reviews must address important topics with novel perspective. Desk rejection ~20-30%.

Peer review

120-180 days

2-3 energy experts assess literature comprehensiveness, critical analysis quality, novelty of synthesis, and forward perspective. Reviews are thorough. First decision 120-180 days.

Revision and publication

Revision: 6-12 weeks

Revisions often request additional technology coverage, deeper comparative analysis, or expanded recommendations. Publication 2-4 weeks after acceptance.

Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. by the Numbers

2024 Impact Factor	15.9
5-Year Impact Factor	16.5
Acceptance rate	~30-40%
Desk rejection rate	~20-30%
Median first decision	~150 days
Open access option	$3,200 USD
Publisher	Elsevier
Founded	1997

Before you submit

Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. accepts a small fraction of submissions. Make your attempt count.

Start with the Free Readiness Scan. Unlock the Full AI Diagnostic for $29. If you need deeper scientific feedback, choose Expert Review. The full report is calibrated to Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev..

Run Free Readiness Scan See a sample report

Article Types

Review Article

10,000-15,000 words

Comprehensive energy technology or sustainability review

Critical Review

12,000-18,000 words

In-depth critical synthesis of topic area

Landmark Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. Papers

Papers that defined fields and changed science:

Comprehensive renewable energy transition assessments (various) - pathway analyses
Battery technology evolution and comparison reviews (2010s+) - technology development
Energy storage comprehensive reviews - enabling renewable integration
Climate change and energy transition reviews - linking climate to energy
Energy efficiency potential assessments - unlocking efficiency opportunities

Preparing a Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. Submission?

Get pre-submission feedback from reviewers who've published in Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. and know exactly what editors look for.

Run Free Readiness Scan

Need expert depth? See Expert Review Options

NDA-protected

Confidential

Primary Fields

Renewable Energy TechnologiesEnergy EfficiencyEnergy StorageSustainable TransitionsEnergy PolicyLifecycle Assessment

More Guides for This Journal

Ready to submit to Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.?

A desk rejection costs months. Get expert feedback before you submit, from scientists who know exactly what Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. editors look for.

Avoid Desk Rejection

Get expert pre-submission review before you submit to Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.. 3-7 day turnaround.

Manuscript Rejected?

Expert revision help to strengthen your manuscript and resubmit with confidence.

Reviewer Response Help

Get expert guidance crafting your response to Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. reviewers.

Reference library

Compare Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. with the broader publishing context

This journal guide is the best starting point for Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.. The reference library covers the surrounding questions authors usually ask next: whether the package is ready, what drives desk rejection, how neighboring journals compare, and what the submission constraints look like across the field.

Open the reference library →

Checklist system / operational asset

Elite Submission Checklist

A flagship pre-submission checklist that turns journal-fit, desk-reject, and package-quality lessons into one operational final-pass audit.

Flagship report / decision support

Desk Rejection Report

A canonical desk-rejection report that organizes the most common editorial failure modes, what they look like, and how to prevent them.

Dataset / reference hub

Journal Intelligence Dataset

A canonical journal dataset that combines selectivity posture, review timing, submission requirements, and Manusights fit signals in one citeable reference asset.

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.