Journal Guide
Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews Impact Factor 16.3: Publishing Guide
Comprehensive energy reviews synthesizing pathways to sustainable energy systems
16.3
Impact Factor (2024)
~30-40%
Acceptance Rate
~120-180 days median
Time to First Decision
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 quick diagnostic reads your full manuscript against Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.'s criteria and flags the specific issues most likely to cause rejection.
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 submissionContact 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
Prep10,000-15,000 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 0Submit 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 weeksEditor assesses topic appropriateness, comprehensiveness, and novelty of synthesis. Reviews must address important topics with novel perspective. Desk rejection ~20-30%.
Peer review
120-180 days2-3 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 weeksRevisions 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.
The pre-submission diagnostic runs a live literature search, scores your manuscript section by section, and gives you a prioritized fix list calibrated to Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.. ~30 minutes.
Article Types
Review Article
10,000-15,000 wordsComprehensive energy technology or sustainability review
Critical Review
12,000-18,000 wordsIn-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 ScanNeed expert depth? Human review from $1,000
Primary Fields
Related Journal Guides
All journal guidesRelated Articles
- Desk Rejection: What It Means, Why It Happens, and What to Do Next
- How to Respond to Reviewer Comments (Without Losing Your Mind)
- How to Choose the Right Journal for Your Paper (A Practical Guide)
- Pre-Submission Scientific Review: What It Costs, When It Works, and When to Skip It
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.
Need field-expert depth? Human review from $1,000