Journal of Energy Conservation · Reviewer Guidelines
Reviewer Guidelines
Peer reviewers evaluate manuscripts for validity, rigor, and clarity, and help authors strengthen their work. This guide sets out what the journal asks before you accept an invitation and while you review.
Before you accept
Four checks
- ExpertiseThe manuscript’s energy system, technology, or method falls within your expertise. If it does not, decline and, where possible, suggest an alternative reviewer.
- ConflictsYou have no conflict of interest with the authors, their institutions, or the work. Decline if one exists.
- ConfidentialityYou will keep the manuscript and the authors’ identities confidential throughout and after the review.
- TimeYou can complete the review in the time requested, or you will tell the editorial office promptly if a delay arises.
Reviewing the evidence
Questions to ask of the manuscript
Is the question clear and within scope?
- Does the work make a clear contribution to energy conservation, energy efficiency, or renewable integration, as described in the Aims and Scope?
- Are the objectives and the system or context under study defined precisely?
Are the methods and assumptions sound?
- Are the methods appropriate to the question, and described in enough detail to be replicated?
- For modeling studies, are simulation parameters, boundary conditions, and validation reported?
- For experimental and field studies, are equipment, calibration, sample sizes, and statistical methods reported?
Do the conclusions follow from the evidence?
- Are claims of performance improvement supported by appropriate validation and uncertainty analysis?
- Where cost is part of the claim, are cost assumptions and sensitivity analyses reported?
- Are limitations acknowledged, and are comparisons with existing work fair?
Is the reporting complete?
- Are SI units used consistently, and are figures and tables clear and free of duplication?
- Does an empirical manuscript include a data-availability statement?
- Where a reporting guideline applies, such as CONSORT, STROBE, or PRISMA, has it been followed?
Responsibilities
Conduct during and after review
- Review model
- 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. For double-blind manuscripts, reviewers must not attempt to identify the authors.
- Objectivity
- Assess the manuscript on its content, independent of the authors’ identities, institutions, or funding.
- AI tools
- 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.
- Integrity
- Report suspected misconduct or ethical concerns to the editorial office rather than raising them with the authors.
- Files
- After submitting the review, reviewers should securely delete downloaded manuscript files and must not retain or use unpublished material.
The report
Writing the report
Address the major scientific and methodological issues first, then minor points and presentation. Make each comment specific and actionable, and conclude with a recommendation (accept, minor revision, major revision, or reject) and its justification.
Revised manuscripts
When a revision returns, check the authors’ point-by-point responses against your earlier comments and the highlighted changes.
Related pages
Policies and guidance
- Editorial PoliciesPeer review, integrity, and corrections.
- Instructions for AuthorsThe reporting requirements authors follow.
- Editors GuidelinesHow editors handle manuscripts and decisions.