Guide for Reviewers

This Guide sets out practical instructions for reviewers invited to assess manuscripts submitted to the journal.

Reviewers must also comply with Peer Review Policy and the other applicable SDEWES Journals Policies, which apply across all SDEWES journals. Relevant policies and practical resources are linked throughout this Guide.

Before Accepting a Review

Purpose of peer review

Peer review supports editorial decision-making by providing an independent expert assessment of the quality, originality, validity, relevance and clarity of a submitted manuscript.

Reviewers help editors determine whether the manuscript meets the journal’s scientific and editorial requirements and provide constructive comments that may help authors improve their work.

Single-blind peer review

The journal uses single-blind peer review. Reviewers are informed of the authors’ identities, while reviewer identities are not disclosed to the authors.

Original Research Articles and Review Articles that pass the initial editorial assessment are evaluated by at least two independent external expert reviewers who are not part of the journal’s editorial team. Additional reviewers may be invited where further subject or methodological expertise is required or where reviewer assessments differ substantially.

Reviewers assess the manuscript and any supplementary material provided for peer review. Reviewer reports are confidential and are not published. Reviewers must not sign their reports or otherwise disclose their identity to the authors.

The same peer-review standards apply to regular submissions, special issues, article collections and conference-linked submissions.

Role of reviewers and editors

Reviewers provide independent expert advice on the manuscript. They assess the work, identify strengths and weaknesses and provide a reasoned recommendation to the editor.

Reviewers do not make the editorial decision. The Editor-in-Chief or another editor authorised by the journal remains responsible for evaluating the manuscript, reviewer reports, author responses and applicable journal requirements.

Peer review supports but does not replace independent editorial judgement, in accordance with Peer Review Policy and Editorial Independence.

Reviewer recommendations and editorial decisions

Reviewers may recommend acceptance, minor revision, major revision or rejection. The recommendation must be supported by clear reasons and be consistent with the review report.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. Editors assess the manuscript, reviewer reports, author responses and applicable journal requirements and may seek additional review where necessary.

Editorial decisions are based on scientific and editorial considerations and are independent of the applicable APC category, amount, payer and payment or waiver status, conference participation, institutional relationships, sponsorship, advertising, SDEWES membership or other non-scientific considerations, in accordance with Editorial Independence.

Before Accepting a Review

Before accepting an invitation, reviewers must confirm that they have the appropriate expertise, sufficient time and no competing interest that would prevent an independent assessment. The invitation and all related information must be treated as confidential.

Subject and methodological expertise

Reviewers should accept an invitation only where they have sufficient subject, methodological or interdisciplinary expertise to assess the manuscript.

A reviewer who can assess only part of the work should inform the editor before accepting and identify any limitations in their expertise. The editor will determine whether the review should proceed.

Availability and review deadline

Reviewers should accept an invitation only where they can provide a careful and complete review within the requested timeframe.

The invitation should be accepted or declined promptly. A reviewer who anticipates a delay after accepting must inform the editor as soon as possible so that an extension or replacement reviewer can be considered.

Competing interests

Reviewers must disclose any actual, potential or perceived competing interest before accepting the invitation or immediately if an interest becomes apparent later.

Relevant interests may include:

recent or current collaboration with an author;
current or recent shared institutional affiliation;
supervisory or student relationships;
close personal or professional relationships;
involvement in the same project or consortium;
prior involvement in the manuscript or reported work, including commenting on an earlier draft;
financial interests; or
direct academic or commercial competition.

Where an interest clearly prevents an independent assessment, the reviewer must decline or withdraw. Where the reviewer is uncertain, the interest should be disclosed to the editor, who will determine whether the review may proceed.

Detailed requirements are provided in Competing Interests and Funding Disclosure and Peer Review Policy.

Confidentiality of the invitation and manuscript

The review invitation, manuscript title and abstract, manuscript and supplementary files, author information and editorial correspondence are confidential.

Reviewers must not share, discuss, copy, distribute or use this information outside the authorised peer-review process. Confidentiality applies whether the invitation is accepted or declined and continues after the review and editorial decision.

Manuscript files must be stored securely and must not be used for personal, academic, financial or competitive advantage. Detailed requirements are provided in Peer Review Policy and Privacy.

Accepting or declining through COMET

Reviewers must accept or decline the invitation through the COMET submission system.

Reviewers must use their own COMET account and must not share login credentials or accept or submit a review on behalf of another person.

When accepting, reviewers should confirm that:

the manuscript is within their expertise;
they can meet the requested deadline;
they have disclosed any relevant competing interest; and
their contact and professional information in COMET is accurate.

When declining, reviewers should provide a brief reason. They may suggest an appropriately qualified alternative reviewer, but reviewer selection remains under the control of the editor.

Co-reviewers and delegation

Reviewers must not delegate the review or involve a colleague, student or trainee without prior permission from the journal.

Any approved co-reviewer must be identified to the editor so that their contribution can be recorded. The co-reviewer must comply with the same requirements concerning confidentiality, competing interests, professional conduct and use of external tools.

The invited reviewer remains responsible for submitting the final report and ensuring that it is accurate, complete and consistent with the journal’s requirements. Detailed requirements are provided in Peer Review Policy.

Assessing the Manuscript

Reviewers should assess the manuscript objectively, proportionately and within their area of expertise. The review should identify the principal strengths and weaknesses and provide clear reasons for each substantive comment.

Suitability and contribution to the journal

Reviewers should assess whether the manuscript:

is relevant to the journal’s Aims and Scope;
addresses a clearly defined research question or objective;
provides a meaningful contribution to the field;
is appropriate for the selected article type; and
is of potential interest to the journal’s readership.

Concerns about journal suitability should be explained clearly to the editor. Reviewers should not recommend rejection solely because the manuscript does not address their own preferred topic or approach.

Originality and relation to previous research

Reviewers should assess whether the manuscript presents sufficiently original research, analysis, synthesis or interpretation.

The manuscript should:

explain how it relates to relevant previous research;
identify the research gap or unresolved issue;
distinguish its contribution from prior work; and
cite relevant literature accurately and fairly.

Reviewers should identify any substantial overlap, possible duplicate publication or unattributed use of earlier work. Suggested citations must be directly relevant and supported by a clear scholarly reason.

Reviewers must not request citation of their own work or the work of associates for personal advantage or citation enhancement.

Methodology and reproducibility

Reviewers should assess whether the methods are appropriate for the research question and described in sufficient detail to support evaluation and, where reasonably possible, reproduction.

Depending on the study, reviewers should consider:

research design and system boundaries;
sex- and gender-related research design, analysis and reporting, where relevant;
data sources and sampling;
assumptions, scenarios and parameter values;
experimental or modelling procedures;
analytical and statistical methods;
calibration and validation;
uncertainty and sensitivity analysis;
limitations; and
compliance with relevant reporting standards.

Requests for additional analyses, data collection, modelling, experiments or other work should be necessary, proportionate and feasible within a reasonable revision period.

Detailed requirements concerning methods and reproducibility are provided in Research Data and Transparency.

Results, discussion and conclusions

Reviewers should assess whether:

the results are presented clearly and accurately;
the analyses support the reported findings;
uncertainties and limitations are appropriately addressed;
the discussion interprets the results in relation to the research question and previous work;
alternative explanations are considered where relevant; and
the conclusions are supported by the evidence presented.

Reviewers should identify conclusions that are overstated, insufficiently supported or inconsistent with the reported methods and results.

Data, code, figures, tables and supplementary material

Reviewers should assess, where relevant, whether the data, code, software, models and supporting materials are sufficient to understand and evaluate the work.

They should consider whether:

the Data Availability Statement is complete, consistent with the manuscript and, where possible, supported by the repository or access information provided;
relevant data, code or model information is available or any restriction is justified;
figures and tables accurately represent the underlying results;
captions, labels, units and legends are clear;
images or data appear to have been inappropriately altered;
supplementary material is relevant, complete and consistent with the manuscript; and
essential methodological information has not been placed only in supplementary files.

Reviewers should not request public disclosure of personal, confidential, proprietary, security-sensitive or otherwise restricted material where controlled or limited access is appropriate.

Detailed requirements are provided in Research Data and Transparency, Privacy and Copyright & Licensing.

References and presentation

Reviewers should assess whether the manuscript is clearly organised and written in a form that allows the research to be evaluated.

They should consider:

clarity and logical structure;
consistency between the title, abstract, main text and conclusions;
appropriate use of terminology, symbols and units;
readability of figures, tables and equations;
completeness and accuracy of references; and
compliance with the principal requirements of the Guide for Authors and Manuscript Template.

Reviewers are not expected to provide detailed language editing or reformat the manuscript. They should identify language or presentation problems that materially affect clarity, interpretation or scientific assessment.

Research ethics and integrity

Reviewers should consider whether the manuscript raises concerns relating to:

required ethical approval, consent, waiver, exemption, permit or licence;
protection of human participants, communities, animals or the environment;
personal, identifiable or confidential information;
data fabrication or falsification;
inappropriate data or image manipulation;
plagiarism, duplicate or redundant publication;
authorship or contributorship;
undisclosed competing interests or funding;
citation manipulation;
inappropriate use of generative AI or AI-assisted technologies; or
another possible research-integrity or publication-ethics issue.

Any concern should be reported confidentially to the responsible editor with sufficient detail to support assessment. Reviewers must not contact authors, institutions or third parties or attempt to conduct their own investigation. The matter will be assessed under Publishing Ethics, Research Ethics, Research Data and Transparency, Generative AI Policy and any other applicable specialised SDEWES Journals Policy.

Preparing and Submitting the Review Report

The review report should be clear, constructive, evidence-based and sufficiently detailed to support the editorial decision and help the authors improve the manuscript.

Overall assessment

The report should begin with a concise overall assessment identifying:

the manuscript’s purpose and principal contribution;
its main strengths;
its principal scientific or methodological weaknesses; and
the overall level of revision required, if any.

The overall assessment should be consistent with the detailed comments and editorial recommendation.

Major and minor comments

Comments should be organised clearly and numbered consecutively.

Major comments should address issues that materially affect the scientific quality, validity, interpretation or contribution of the manuscript, such as:

unclear objectives or research questions;
insufficient originality;
inappropriate or inadequately described methods;
unsupported results or conclusions;
missing validation, uncertainty or sensitivity analysis;
significant data, ethics or reproducibility concerns; or
substantial omissions in the discussion.

Minor comments should address more limited issues that do not materially affect the principal findings, such as:

unclear wording;
incomplete explanations;
minor inconsistencies;
presentation of figures or tables;
terminology, symbols or units; or
reference and formatting issues.

Reviewers should avoid presenting substantive scientific concerns as minor comments.

Comments to the authors

Comments to the authors should be:

objective, constructive and respectful;
specific and supported by clear reasons;
focused on the manuscript rather than the authors;
proportionate to the importance of the issue; and
sufficiently detailed to allow the authors to respond.

Reviewers should distinguish clearly between changes that are necessary and suggestions that may improve the manuscript.

Comments must not contain abusive, discriminatory, defamatory or inappropriate language, unsupported allegations, confidential information or statements intended to reveal the reviewer’s identity.

Material that breaches journal policy may be removed or withheld in accordance with Peer Review Policy.

Confidential comments to the editor

Reviewers may provide confidential comments to the editor where information is relevant to the editorial decision but should not be communicated directly to the authors.

Confidential comments may include:

concerns about originality or possible misconduct;
competing-interest concerns;
concerns about ethical approval, consent, data integrity or peer-review manipulation;
limitations in the reviewer’s expertise;
reasons for the editorial recommendation; or
sensitive information requiring further editorial assessment.

Confidential comments should not contradict the comments provided to the authors without a clear reason. Scientific criticisms supporting the recommendation should normally also be communicated constructively to the authors.

Editorial recommendation

Reviewers should select one of the recommendation options available in COMET:

acceptance;
minor revision;
major revision; or
rejection.

The recommendation must be consistent with the review report.

Reviewers should recommend rejection where the manuscript has fundamental scientific or editorial problems that cannot reasonably be resolved through revision, such as insufficient originality, an unsuitable research design or unreliable findings.

Suspected ethical or integrity concerns should be reported confidentially to the editor and must not be presented as confirmed misconduct.

A recommendation for major or minor revision should identify the changes necessary for further consideration. Acceptance should be recommended only where the manuscript meets the journal’s scientific and editorial requirements and requires no substantive revision.

The recommendation is advisory. The final decision remains with the Editor-in-Chief or another editor authorised by the journal, in accordance with Peer Review Policy and Editorial Independence.

Submitting the review through COMET

The completed review must be submitted through the COMET submission system within the requested deadline.

Before submission, reviewers should confirm that:

all principal scientific and methodological issues have been addressed;
major and minor comments are clearly distinguished;
the recommendation is consistent with the report;
confidential comments are entered in the appropriate field;
the report does not contain unnecessary personal or confidential information; and
the wording does not reveal the reviewer’s identity.

Reviewers should contact the editorial office promptly if a technical problem prevents submission through COMET.

Protecting reviewer identity

Because the journal uses single-blind peer review, reviewers must avoid revealing their identity in:

comments to the authors;
uploaded review files;
file names;
document properties or tracked changes;
wording, acknowledgements or citation suggestions that unnecessarily identify the reviewer; and
other information provided through COMET.

Reviewers should inspect uploaded files and remove identifying metadata before submission.

Reviewer identities are handled confidentially in accordance with Peer Review Policy and Privacy.

Ethical and Professional Responsibilities

Reviewers must act independently, confidentially and professionally throughout the peer-review process. These responsibilities apply from receipt of the invitation and continue after submission of the review and the editorial decision.

Objective, constructive and respectful reviewing

Reviews must be objective, evidence-based and focused on the manuscript.

Reviewers should:

explain the reasons for each substantive criticism;
distinguish essential revisions from optional suggestions;
recognise relevant strengths as well as weaknesses;
avoid personal remarks or assumptions about the authors; and
use respectful and professional language.

Reviews must not contain abusive, discriminatory, intimidating, defamatory or otherwise inappropriate comments.

A reviewer must not allow personal, institutional, academic, commercial, political or other non-scientific considerations to influence the assessment.

Detailed requirements are provided in Peer Review Policy and Publishing Ethics.

Confidentiality and secure file handling

The manuscript, supplementary files, review report, author responses, reviewer identity, editorial correspondence and editorial deliberations are confidential.

Reviewers must:

access the files only for the authorised review;
store downloaded material securely;
prevent access by unauthorised persons;
not copy, share or distribute confidential material; and
not use unpublished information for personal, academic, financial or competitive advantage.

Confidentiality continues after the review has been submitted and after the editorial decision.

Detailed requirements are provided in Peer Review Policy and Privacy.

Requirements for deletion or secure disposal of files after completion of the review are provided in Section 7.3.

No direct contact with authors

Reviewers must not contact authors directly concerning the manuscript.

Questions, requests for clarification and concerns must be communicated through the editor and the COMET submission system.

Reviewers must not attempt to identify confidential participants in the editorial process or contact the authors’ institutions, funders or other third parties concerning the manuscript.

Citation suggestions

Reviewers may suggest additional references only where they are directly relevant and would materially improve the manuscript.

Each suggested citation should be supported by a clear scholarly reason.

Reviewers must not:

request citation of their own work or the work of associates for personal advantage;
propose irrelevant citations to increase citation counts;
require citation of articles from this journal without a clear scholarly basis; or
make acceptance dependent on unnecessary citation changes.

Inappropriate citation requests may be removed from the report and assessed under Peer Review Policy and Publishing Ethics.

Generative AI and external tools

Reviewers must not upload manuscripts, supplementary files, review reports, author responses, reviewer identities or other confidential material to public or non-approved generative AI or AI-assisted tools.

Peer review must not be delegated to generative AI. Reviewers remain fully responsible for the analysis, reasoning, accuracy, fairness and recommendations in their reports.

Reviewers must not use external plagiarism-detection, AI-detection, translation, file-conversion or other screening services with confidential manuscript content unless the tool has been expressly approved by SDEWES Centre or the journal for that purpose.

Basic spelling, grammar or formatting functions may be used only where they do not transmit confidential content to an unauthorised external service or generate substantive review content.

Any permitted substantive use of an approved tool must be disclosed to the editor where required. Detailed requirements are provided in Generative AI Policy, Peer Review Policy and Privacy.

Suspected misconduct and ethical concerns

Reviewers should report confidentially to the editor any concern involving possible:

plagiarism or substantial unattributed overlap;
duplicate or redundant publication;
data fabrication or falsification;
inappropriate data or image manipulation;
authorship or identity manipulation;
undisclosed competing interests or funding;
citation manipulation;
research conducted without required ethical approval, consent, permission or permits;
breach of privacy or confidentiality;
misuse of generative AI or AI-assisted technologies; or
manipulation of the peer-review or publication process.

The report should describe the concern factually and identify the relevant manuscript content and, where known, the potentially overlapping source or other supporting information.

Reviewers must not:

accuse the authors of misconduct in comments addressed directly to them;
contact authors, institutions, funders or third parties;
conduct an independent investigation; or
circulate the concern outside the authorised editorial process.

A missing statement, inconsistency or unusual result does not by itself establish misconduct. The journal will assess the concern fairly and proportionately under Publishing Ethics and one or more relevant specialised SDEWES Journals Policies.

Reviewing a Revised Manuscript

When invited to review a revised manuscript, reviewers should assess whether the authors have addressed the editor’s and reviewers’ comments and whether the manuscript now meets the journal’s scientific and editorial requirements.

Author responses

Reviewers should examine the authors’ point-by-point response together with the revised manuscript.

They should assess whether:

each relevant comment has been addressed;
the response explains clearly what was changed;
changes are identified accurately in the manuscript; and
any comment not followed is supported by a reasonable and evidence-based explanation.

Authors are not required to accept every suggestion, but they must respond to each substantive concern.

Assessment of revisions

The review should focus primarily on whether the issues raised in the previous review and editorial decision have been resolved.

Reviewers should verify that:

the revised methods, analyses and results are scientifically sound;
changes are applied consistently throughout the manuscript;
conclusions remain supported by the revised evidence;
figures, tables, supplementary material and statements have been updated where necessary; and
the revision has not introduced new inconsistencies or unsupported claims.

Reviewers should not require changes that go beyond what is necessary to address the scientific and editorial concerns.

New comments

New comments should normally be limited to:

issues introduced by the revision;
significant problems that became apparent only after reviewing the revised manuscript; or
serious scientific, ethical or integrity concerns that were not reasonably identifiable during the previous review.

Reviewers should avoid introducing new preferences or additional requests that are unrelated to the previous concerns and are not necessary for the reliability or clarity of the manuscript.

Any new substantive concern must be explained clearly and supported by an appropriate reason.

Further recommendation

After assessing the revised manuscript, reviewers should provide a further recommendation through the COMET submission system.

The recommendation may include:

acceptance;
minor revision;
major revision; or
rejection.

The recommendation must reflect whether the principal concerns have been addressed and must be consistent with the reviewer’s comments.

Where further revision is recommended, the remaining requirements should be specific, proportionate and feasible. Where rejection is recommended, the report should explain which fundamental concerns remain unresolved.

The recommendation remains advisory. The final editorial decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief or another editor authorised by the journal in accordance with Peer Review Policy and Editorial Independence.

After the Review and Contact

Reviewer responsibilities continue after the report has been submitted. Confidentiality must be maintained, and any later concern about the manuscript or peer-review process should be raised through the journal.

Editorial decision and the reviewer’s role

The reviewer’s recommendation is advisory. The final decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief or another editor authorised by the journal after considering:

the manuscript;
reviewer reports;
author responses;
any additional expert advice; and
the journal’s scientific, ethical and editorial requirements.

The editorial decision may differ from the reviewer’s recommendation. Reviewers must not contact the authors concerning the decision. Any concern about the decision or peer-review process should be raised through the journal’s authorised contact route.

Where appropriate, reviewers may be informed of the final editorial decision and may receive anonymised comments from other reviewers.

Continuing confidentiality

Confidentiality continues after submission of the review and after the editorial decision.

Reviewers must not disclose or discuss:

the manuscript or its contents;
author responses;
review reports;
reviewer identities;
editorial correspondence or deliberations; or
the outcome of the peer-review process unless disclosure has been authorised by the journal.

Unpublished information must not be used in the reviewer’s own research, teaching, publications, commercial activities or other work without appropriate authorisation.

Detailed requirements are provided in Peer Review Policy and Privacy.

Deletion or secure disposal of files

Reviewers should delete or securely dispose of downloaded manuscripts, supplementary files, author responses and local review records when they are no longer required for the authorised review purpose.

Confidential files must not be retained in:

shared or publicly accessible folders;
personal cloud services without appropriate protection;
email attachments or temporary download folders;
external tools or platforms not approved by the journal; or
devices accessible to unauthorised persons.

Where the journal requests further review of a revised manuscript, reviewers should access the current files through the COMET submission system rather than rely on an earlier locally stored version.

Peer-review concerns and complaints

Reviewers should contact the journal promptly if they become aware of:

a previously undisclosed competing interest;
a confidentiality or privacy breach;
misuse of their identity or review report;
suspected peer-review manipulation;
inappropriate editorial or author contact;
abusive or unprofessional conduct;
a technical or procedural problem affecting the review; or
another concern about the integrity or fairness of the process.

Peer-review concerns are assessed under Peer Review Policy and, where applicable, Publishing Ethics, Privacy or Competing Interests and Funding Disclosure.

A formal complaint concerning peer-review handling, editorial conduct, confidentiality, delay or policy application may be submitted under Editorial Decision Appeals and Complaints.

Editorial and technical contact

Questions concerning an active review, review deadline, manuscript files, competing interests or interpretation of reviewer requirements should normally be directed to the responsible editor through COMET.

Where a concern involves the responsible editor or the Editor-in-Chief, or concerns editorial conduct, publication ethics or research integrity, it should be submitted to ethics@sdewes.org. A suspected privacy or personal-data breach should be submitted to privacy@sdewes.org.

Technical problems concerning access, file download, report submission or reviewer account information should be reported through the route provided in the review invitation or on the journal’s Contact page.

Reviewers must not contact authors directly.