Reviews for "Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews"

Average duration			Review reports (1^st review rnd.)
1^st rev. rnd	Tot. handling	Im. rejection	Number	Quality	Overall rating	Outcome	Year
8.6 weeks	8.6 weeks	n/a	2	0 (very bad)	0 (very bad)	Rejected	2022
Motivation: The reviews were obviously faulty as they neglected the common knowledge in the field. The second review was just one sentence. This is but a joke.
39.4 weeks	43.4 weeks	n/a	2	4 (very good)	4 (very good)	Accepted	2017
n/a	n/a	38.0 days	n/a	n/a	n/a	Rejected (im.)	2018
20.4 weeks	32.6 weeks	n/a	2	5 (excellent)	5 (excellent)	Accepted	2017
31.7 weeks	45.7 weeks	n/a	3	3 (good)	0 (very bad)	Rejected	2017
Motivation: After a very long revision process (four revisions over a period of one year –first revision arrived after 7 months), and when the 3 external reviewers were satisfied with the changes made, the editor-in-chief rejected the paper without any justification (white space below “Reviewers and/or Editors' comments”). During this long process of over 1 year and 4 revisions, no deficiency in the content of the paper was ever mentioned by the Editor. Editor comments were addressed in relation to format and English language, which were addressed sending the manuscript to a professional English corrector. Despite this authoritarian way of handling papers is allowed by Elsevier rules (“The Editor is responsible for the final decision regarding acceptance or rejection of articles. The Editor's decision is final”), this revision process has not followed a regular procedure according to what is commonly understood in the scientific community as a correct peer-review process. Thus, we strongly prevent from submitting to this journal given the risk of arbitrariness in the review process.
n/a	n/a	294.0 days	n/a	n/a	n/a	Rejected (im.)	2018
n/a	n/a	294.0 days	n/a	n/a	n/a	Rejected (im.)	2018
Motivation: Almost one year to say that the manuscript is out of the scope of the journal! Totally not professional!
22.1 weeks	22.1 weeks	n/a	10	3 (good)	3 (good)	Rejected	2016
Motivation: My paper was checked and reviewed by 10 different reviewers, and it was shocking for me to keep satisfy all of them at the first stage. 9 of reviewers recommended revisions (5 recommended acceptance), and only one reviewer advice rejection, and the paper was rejected.
n/a	n/a	5.0 days	n/a	n/a	n/a	Rejected (im.)	2015
Motivation: I read several previous published papers in the topic of my paper in this journal. But, the paper was rejected by editor without any reason.
18.4 weeks	38.0 weeks	n/a	3	5 (excellent)	3 (good)	Accepted	2016
Motivation: Receiving reviews was very slow. However, the editorial team was efficient in providing feedback. The review comments (3 reviewers) were all high quality and contributed to an increase in the quality of the paper.
12.9 weeks	22.7 weeks	n/a	2	5 (excellent)	5 (excellent)	Accepted	2015
Motivation: The review process has been detailed and quite fast. The Editor is always available for all communications and information.
17.1 weeks	29.7 weeks	n/a	2	3 (good)	3 (good)	Accepted	2015
26.0 weeks	27.0 weeks	n/a	1	5 (excellent)	5 (excellent)	Accepted	2014
Motivation: No
13.0 weeks	26.0 weeks	n/a	2	4 (very good)	4 (very good)	Accepted	2015
13.0 weeks	13.0 weeks	n/a	2	1 (bad)	4 (very good)	Rejected	2014
Motivation: Reviews and handling were fast and efficient, but referee reports of pretty poor quality.