Guide for reviewers

Thank you for agreeing to serve as a reviewer for Energy & System. Your expertise and thoughtful feedback are integral to maintaining the high standards and scientific integrity of our journal. Below, we outline the guidelines and expectations for reviewers to ensure a constructive and fair review process.

Purpose of Peer Review

The peer review process is critical for:

• Ensuring the quality, originality, and scientific rigor of the articles we publish.

• Providing authors with constructive feedback to improve their work.

• Helping the editorial team make informed decisions on manuscript acceptance, revision, or rejection.

Confidentiality

All manuscripts under review are confidential documents. Please do not share, discuss, or use any part of the manuscript for your personal research. If you need to consult a colleague, you must first obtain permission from the editorial team.

Ethical Standards

We uphold strict ethical standards in the review process. Please disclose any conflicts of interest that may arise due to competitive, collaborative, or other relationships with the authors or institutions associated with the manuscript. If you believe you cannot provide an unbiased review, please inform the editorial office promptly.

Reviewer Responsibilities

As a reviewer, you are expected to:

Evaluate the Manuscript

- Originality and Contribution: Assess whether the manuscript offers new insights, knowledge, or advancements in the fields of energy systems and related disciplines.

- Scientific Rigor: Verify the methodology, accuracy of data analysis, and soundness of conclusions.

- Relevance and Scope: Ensure the manuscript aligns with the aims and scope of Energy & System.

Provide Constructive Feedback

- Be specific in identifying strengths and weaknesses.

- Offer actionable suggestions to improve clarity, coherence, and technical quality.

- Avoid overly critical or dismissive comments; maintain a professional and respectful tone.

Adhere to Deadlines

- Submit your review within the agreed timeframe. If you require an extension, notify the editorial team as soon as possible.

Structure of Your Review

Your review report should include the following components:

Summary

Provide a brief summary of the manuscript, highlighting its main contributions and objectives. This helps the editors understand your perspective and ensures alignment with the manuscript’s intent.

Detailed Comments

- Address specific sections of the manuscript (e.g., introduction, methodology, results, discussion).

- Comment on the logical flow, clarity of arguments, and quality of figures/tables.

- Highlight any errors, inconsistencies, or missing references.

Overall Assessment

- Rate the manuscript’s overall quality and relevance.

- Recommend one of the following actions:

Accept with Minor Revisions: Suitable for publication with minor adjustments.

Major Revisions Required: Promising manuscript requiring significant improvements.

Reject: Does not meet the standards or scope of the journal.

Confidential Comments to the Editors (if applicable)

 

Key Evaluation Criteria

• Clarity: Is the manuscript well-written and easy to understand?

• Originality: Does it present novel ideas or findings?

• Technical Accuracy: Are the methods and data analysis sound?

• Significance: Does it make a meaningful contribution to the field?

• Presentation: Are figures, tables, and references appropriately used and formatted?

Support and Acknowledgment

Your contribution as a reviewer is highly valued. We acknowledge and appreciate your role in advancing scholarly research. If you have any questions or need assistance during the review process, please contact the editorial office at es@mri-pub.com.

Thank you for your dedication and commitment to excellence in scientific publishing. We look forward to your valuable insights.