Initial Editorial Evaluation

All manuscripts submitted to Renewable Energy, Biomass & Sustainability (REB&S) are first evaluated by the editorial team to determine whether they fit the aims, scope, editorial policies, and quality standards of the journal. Manuscripts may be rejected at this stage if they are considered unsuitable for further consideration.

Double-Blind Peer Review

If a manuscript is considered suitable, it will normally be sent to at least two independent reviewers with expertise in the subject area for a thorough assessment of its scientific quality, originality, clarity, and relevance.

REB&S follows a double-blind peer review process, in which the identities of both authors and reviewers are kept confidential during the review process.

General Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers are asked to assess manuscripts objectively, fairly, confidentially, and constructively. Their evaluation considers, among other aspects, the following criteria:

• Originality and relevance of the manuscript
• Scientific soundness and methodological quality
• Adequacy of the literature review approach, when applicable
• Clarity and interpretation of results and discussion
• Synthesis and critical interpretation of the literature in review articles
• Novelty and contribution to the field
• Clarity, organization, and quality of writing
• Quality and appropriateness of figures, tables, and data presentation
• Adequacy, relevance, and currency of references
• Ethical and editorial compliance
• Artificial intelligence (AI) disclosure, when applicable
• Data availability and transparency

For review articles, the evaluation criteria are interpreted in terms of literature coverage, critical analysis, methodological transparency, and synthesis of existing knowledge, rather than experimental design.

Confidentiality and Ethical Considerations

All manuscripts under review must be treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not share, use, or distribute any part of the manuscript, data, figures, tables, or editorial information for personal or professional purposes.

Any ethical concern identified during the review process, including plagiarism, data integrity issues, undisclosed conflicts of interest, or inappropriate use of artificial intelligence tools, must be reported to the editor.

Use of Artificial Intelligence by Reviewers

The use of artificial intelligence (AI) tools by reviewers is permitted only for limited support tasks and must not compromise confidentiality, violate data privacy, or replace the reviewer’s independent critical assessment.

Editorial Decisions

Based on the reviewers’ comments and recommendations, the editors will make the final decision regarding acceptance, revision, or rejection of the manuscript. Manuscripts may receive one of the following decisions:

• Accept
• Minor revisions
• Major revisions
• Reject

Revised Manuscripts

To ensure timely processing and publication, authors are given up to 2 months to submit a revised version of their manuscript. Revised manuscripts returned after this period will be treated as new submissions.