Reviewer Guidelines
Best practices for providing constructive peer review that advances energy conservation research quality.
Excellence in Peer Review
Energy Conservation reviewers ensure scientific validity and help authors improve their sustainability research through fair, constructive evaluation and actionable feedback.
Reviewers evaluate manuscripts for scientific merit, methodological rigor, and contribution to energy conservation knowledge while providing constructive feedback for improvement.
Scientific Validity
Assess whether conclusions are supported by data, methods are appropriate, and claims are justified for energy efficiency research.
Technical Quality
Evaluate methodology adequacy, statistical analysis appropriateness, and reproducibility potential for sustainability studies.
Constructive Feedback
Provide specific, actionable suggestions that help authors improve their manuscripts while maintaining respect for energy research contributions.
- Maintain strict confidentiality of manuscript content and author identities for energy research
- Decline reviews involving conflicts of interest in sustainability science fields
- Provide objective assessment based on scientific merit, not personal preferences
- Report suspected misconduct or ethical concerns through appropriate channels
Timeline expectations: Complete reviews within 21 days of acceptance. If delays are anticipated, notify the editorial office promptly for energy conservation manuscripts.
Effective reviews address major scientific issues, methodological concerns, and presentation clarity for sustainability research. Separate major from minor concerns. Conclude with clear recommendation and justification.
Decline promptly if conflicts exist or expertise doesn't match the energy manuscript scope. Suggest alternative reviewers when possible to help editors find appropriate evaluators for conservation research.
Access Review Resources
Find templates and guidance for preparing quality energy research reviews.
View Resources
