Instructions for Reviewers

Peer review is an important and necessary process for Clean Energy journal. Researchers with the relevant research expertise are asked to provide an independent assessment of each manuscript in a timely manner to help editors determine whether it should be published in the journal. The peer review process improves the quality of published work by identifying gaps or flaws in manuscripts pre-publication.

Considerations for your review:

When reviewing the manuscript, consider these questions:

Scope: Does the manuscript contain a clear statement of the importance to energy fields?

Novelty: Does the Introduction explain the novelty of the work clearly with appropriate references?

Methodology: Is there a detailed description of theory employed, equipment and materials, modeling tools, etc. with appropriate QA/QC or validation, replicate samples/controls?

Data sources: Confirm that the data in both the manuscript and the supplemental material (if included) support the authors’ conclusions and are both available and usable. Indicate if additional data or documentation are needed.

Results: Are results presented in an easy-to-understand way (tables, figures) with appropriate captions? Did the authors conduct an uncertainty analysis or statistical analysis of the results (if applicable)?

Impact: Do the Results/Discussion sections discuss the relevance of work to the broader energy field?

Clarity of writing: Include any suggestions on the manuscript’s writing, structure, exposition, scientific accuracy, scholarship, and length, including ways to improve the manuscript. Reviewers are not responsible for editing the manuscript, but please cite one or two specific examples if the exposition is poor.

Do not indicate whether you think the manuscript should be accepted or rejected in your comments to the author; provide that recommendation only in your confidential comments to the Associate Editor.

Most manuscripts are revised before being accepted for publication. To shorten the review process and decrease the burden on reviewers, many revised manuscripts will not be sent back to reviewers. If you feel it's important that you see a revised version, please indicate that in your comments to the Associate Editor.

If you cannot complete the review in the allotted time, let the Associate Editor know. You can ask for an extension. The Associate Editor will consider if it is practical to do so, considering the need to complete reviews in a timely fashion.

How to submit your review:

When logged into your Reviewer Centre on ScholarOne, use the scroll bar on the right to scroll the entire length of the review area and answer all applicable questions.

You will be asked to give a recommendation on manuscript.

You will be asked to provide confidential comments to the Associate Editor and comments that will be given to the author. You can paste these in the boxes or upload a file.

Once your assessment is complete, use the Submit option at the bottom of the page to finalize your review and send it to the Editorial Office.

Ethical guidelines for reviewers:

Clean Energy uses double-anonymous peer review. The identities of the authors and the reviewers are not disclosed.

If you feel that you have a conflict of interest with the manuscript you have been asked to review, please notify the Associate Editor.

We expect reviewers to be experts in their fields of research. Reviewers may suggest that authors include references to other work in the manuscript. However, reviewers should not suggest too many of their own papers to authors.

This journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). You may want to read their guidelines for reviewers which address important considerations, including:

• Consulting the Editor if you have a potential conflict, or declining this invitation if you have a known conflict, with the author(s) and/or the content itself.
• We rely on reviewers for conducting reviews in accordance with, and in order to uphold, the standards of the journal. While there are potential opportunities arising from generative AI, please ensure these types of tools and resources are not used as a substitute for your expert opinion and do not supersede your own judgment.
• Maintaining confidentiality both throughout and following the review process is important, so please do not share information about this manuscript, its content, or your review with any person or entity, including Large Language Models (LLMs) and AI tools.