Editor Guidelines
The editors of Energy and Environmental Research are responsible for maintaining the quality, integrity, credibility, and academic independence of the journal.
Editors should ensure that manuscripts are handled fairly, confidentially, consistently, and according to appropriate scholarly and publication-ethics standards.
Editorial Responsibility and Independence
Editors must evaluate manuscripts objectively according to scientific or scholarly quality, originality, significance, relevance to the journal's scope, methodological soundness, and ethical requirements.
Editorial decisions must not be influenced by an author's nationality, institutional affiliation, gender, ethnicity, religion, political views, personal characteristics, commercial interests, sponsors, advertisers, or other inappropriate considerations.
Editor-in-Chief Responsibility
The Editor-in-Chief has overall responsibility for the journal's editorial direction, peer-review integrity, publication ethics, and final editorial decisions.
The Editor-in-Chief may delegate manuscript handling and decision-making to a qualified Senior Editor, Associate Editor, or other formally designated editor with appropriate subject expertise.
Such delegation does not remove the Editor-in-Chief's overall responsibility.
Initial Editorial Assessment
Editors should assess submitted manuscripts for:
- Relevance to the journal's aims and scope;
- Originality and scholarly significance;
- Scientific and methodological quality;
- Clarity and completeness;
- Research integrity;
- Applicable ethical and regulatory requirements; and
- Overall suitability for peer review.
Peer Review
The journal uses a single-anonymous (single-blind) peer-review process.
Editors should select reviewers with appropriate expertise and independence and should consider potential conflicts of interest before inviting reviewers.
Editors should monitor review progress and seek additional reviewers when reports are insufficient, contradictory, or require additional subject expertise.
Editorial Decisions
Reviewer recommendations are advisory and do not automatically determine the editorial outcome.
The Editor-in-Chief or a formally designated editor acting under delegated authority may:
- Accept the manuscript;
- Request minor revision;
- Request major revision;
- Request additional peer review or clarification; or
- Reject the manuscript.
Decisions should be based on the manuscript, relevant peer-review reports, editorial assessment, ethical considerations, and applicable journal policies.
Energy and Environmental Research Expertise
Editors should ensure that manuscripts are assessed by reviewers with appropriate expertise for the subject, which may include energy systems, renewable energy, environmental science, climate science, sustainability, ecology, environmental engineering, pollution, natural resources, environmental policy, modelling, or other relevant disciplines.
Research Integrity and Ethical Oversight
Editors should remain alert to concerns involving:
- Plagiarism or inappropriate text reuse;
- Fabrication or falsification;
- Duplicate or redundant publication;
- Inappropriate image manipulation;
- Manipulated or unreliable data;
- Undisclosed conflicts of interest;
- Improper authorship;
- Peer-review manipulation;
- Unethical environmental or field research;
- Failure to obtain required permissions or approvals; and
- Other research or publication misconduct.
Where necessary, editors may request supporting information, clarification, documentation, or additional expert assessment.
Conflicts of Interest
Editors must disclose and appropriately manage actual, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest.
An editor should not handle a manuscript where a conflict could compromise, or reasonably appear to compromise, impartiality.
Where a conflict exists, the manuscript should be assigned to another qualified editor for independent handling.
Confidentiality
Editors must maintain the confidentiality of submitted manuscripts, reviewer identities, reviewer reports, editorial correspondence, and unpublished research information.
Unpublished information obtained during editorial handling must not be used for personal, professional, academic, or commercial advantage.
Research Transparency
Editors should encourage appropriate transparency concerning data sources, methodology, models, software, computational procedures, environmental measurements, and other research materials where applicable.
Editors should not require disclosure of confidential or proprietary information where disclosure would be inappropriate.
Reporting Standards
Editors may encourage authors to follow recognized reporting or methodological standards appropriate to the research design and discipline.
Where applicable, editors may refer authors to relevant guidance from the EQUATOR Network and other recognized professional or scientific organizations.
Editorial Independence and Charges
Editorial decisions must remain independent of article processing charges, optional production services, advertising, sponsorship, or other commercial considerations.
Payment or non-payment of optional services must not influence peer review, editorial assessment, acceptance, rejection, or publication decisions.
Corrections, Retractions, and Post-Publication Issues
Editors have a continuing responsibility for the integrity of the published scholarly record.
Where significant errors or concerns are identified after publication, the journal may publish a correction, expression of concern, retraction, or other appropriate editorial notice.
Complaints and Appeals
Authors may raise legitimate concerns or appeal an editorial decision by contacting the editorial office with a clear explanation and relevant supporting information.
Complaints and appeals should be handled fairly, confidentially, and independently where appropriate.
Publication Ethics
Editors should follow the journal's Ethical Principles and Publication Policy and recognized principles of responsible scholarly publishing, including relevant guidance from COPE.