Reviews for "Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews"

Review this journal Show journal page
Journal title Average duration Review reports
(1st review rnd.)
(click to go to journal page) 1st rev. rnd Tot. handling Im. rejection Number Quality Overall rating Outcome Year
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 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.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 39.4
weeks		 43.4
weeks		 n/a 2 4
(very good)		 4
(very good)		 Accepted 2017
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews n/a n/a 38.0
days		 n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2018
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 20.4
weeks		 32.6
weeks		 n/a 2 5
(excellent)		 5
(excellent)		 Accepted 2017
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 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.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews n/a n/a 294.0
days		 n/a n/a n/a Rejected (im.) 2018
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 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!
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 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.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 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.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 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.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 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.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 17.1
weeks		 29.7
weeks		 n/a 2 3
(good)		 3
(good)		 Accepted 2015
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 26.0
weeks		 27.0
weeks		 n/a 1 5
(excellent)		 5
(excellent)		 Accepted 2014
Motivation: No
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 13.0
weeks		 26.0
weeks		 n/a 2 4
(very good)		 4
(very good)		 Accepted 2015
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 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.