Dur. 1st rev. rnd
Tot. handling time
Imm. rejection time
Num. rev. reports
Report quality
Overall rating
Outcome
Year
5.9 weeks
5.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Rejected
2025
Motivation:
We obtain two reviews of poor quality. The first one was decent, but prepared by someone with little knowledge on the paper's topic or methods used. It recommended revisions. The other one completely lacked substance, was jus a set of generic negative statements with no connection to the paper. This one recommended rejection. The editor rejected the paper based on the second, poor quality review, instead of seeking additional more substantial reviews.
n/a
n/a
7 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2023
Motivation:
"Not given a high priority rating" --> Desk reject without any information of the reasons.
13.6 weeks
27.3 weeks
n/a
3 reports
Accepted
2022
Motivation:
Took a long time. The first round of review was helpful, I struggled to understand what the editors were looking for in the second two rounds (they criticised some literature search terms, which was fair but not something that I could do anything about at that stage). They eventually accepted it.
44.9 weeks
44.9 weeks
n/a
4 reports
Rejected
2021
n/a
n/a
12 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2020
n/a
n/a
12 days
n/a
n/a
n/a
Rejected (im.)
2020
15.4 weeks
23.9 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2019
Motivation:
The feedback of the reviewers was very constructive and helpful, which improved the paper greatly. Benjamin Sovacool's personal comments further showed the interest in the paper and was very much appreciated. Overall smooth and timely revision process!
8.7 weeks
34.7 weeks
n/a
5 reports
Accepted
2014
Motivation:
The process was lengthy and some reviews appeared contradictory and unreasonable.
Nevertheless the editors were good, approachable and easy to communicate with.
I feel that the process could have been shorter if better reviewers were in place.
Nevertheless the editors were good, approachable and easy to communicate with.
I feel that the process could have been shorter if better reviewers were in place.
2.7 weeks
6.3 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2018
Motivation:
Benjamin Sovacool and his team are THE SUPREME journal editors. Quick turnaround time, personalized service, and excellent review quality. I knew that such quality was possible, but I had never seen it before in my 20 years in academia. HATS OFF to ERSS.
9.6 weeks
24.0 weeks
n/a
2 reports
Accepted
2017
Motivation:
Very efficient review process. The only higher ranking energy journal I have written for where I believe the editors take a sincere interest in the papers that are accepted for publication.