Journal of Energy Conservation · Editors Guidelines
Editors Guidelines
Editors provide scholarly stewardship by overseeing peer review and upholding publication ethics. These checkpoints follow a manuscript from first assessment to post-publication concerns.
Independence
Editorial decisions remain independent of fees, services, memberships, and editorial roles. The article processing charge is invoiced only upon acceptance, and membership status has no place in an editor’s assessment.
Editorial checkpoints
-
01
Scope and initial assessment
All submissions undergo initial editorial screening. Manuscripts that meet the journal's scope and minimum requirements proceed to independent peer review.
Assess each submission against the areas of inquiry and fit criteria in the Aims and Scope, its technical quality, and its potential contribution to energy conservation, efficiency, or renewable integration.
-
02
Conflicts and confidentiality
- Keep manuscripts and author identities confidential.
- Recuse yourself from decisions involving a personal or professional conflict. Editors recuse themselves from decisions on their own submissions; those manuscripts are handled independently.
-
03
Reviewer selection
Identify reviewers with the technical expertise that the manuscript’s energy system, technology, or method requires.
When double-blind review is requested, editors must ensure that author-identifying information is not shared with reviewers.
-
04
Evaluation
Single-blind by default; double-blind review is available on request. Manuscripts that proceed to external peer review are normally evaluated by at least two independent subject-matter experts.
Reviewers must obtain journal permission before using AI to assist with a review. Any permitted use must be disclosed, and confidential manuscript content must not be uploaded where confidentiality cannot be assured.
-
05
Decision
Editorial decisions are based on scope, scientific quality, methodological rigor, ethical compliance, reporting quality, and relevance to the journal.
Decisions are accept, minor revision, major revision, or reject. Synthesize the reviewers’ reports into a reasoned decision, and give clear guidance on the changes a revision requires. Confirm that empirical manuscripts include a data-availability statement.
-
06
Integrity concerns
Report suspected misconduct, such as fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, or duplicate submission, to the editorial office. Concerns are handled in line with COPE guidance.
-
07
Appeals and post-publication
Authors may appeal an editorial decision on substantiated grounds; appeals are reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief or an alternate editor.
Errors in published work are addressed through errata, corrections, or retractions, according to the nature and significance of the issue.
Related pages
Policies and guidance
- Editorial PoliciesThe journal’s complete policy framework.
- Reviewer GuidelinesWhat the journal asks of its reviewers.
- Editorial BoardThe editors who oversee the journal.