Peer Review Policy
The policy outlined on this page applies to Smart Energy and Sustainable Environment.
These statements are based on Nature’s peer review policy.

General information

The following types of contribution to Smart Energy and Sustainable Environment journal are peer reviewed: research papers, review papers, and conference papers. All erratum to be published, depending on their complexity, will be subject to peer-review evaluation, depending on the decision of the editors. All communications about the peer review process, about a particular article or about any other issue related to the evaluation of an article should be addressed to the editors.

Online manuscript review   

The manuscripts submitted to the e-mail address, can be editable files (e.g., Word) or PDF format and in the peer-review process, the manuscripts will be converted into PDF format.
Correspondence between the author and editor is made by e-mail (
Correspondence between peer-reviewers and editor is made by e-mail and the peer-reviewers will submit their reports via the editor e-mail address

Criteria for publication

To be published in Smart Energy and Sustainable Environment journal, a paper should meet five important and valuable criteria:

  • Novelty of the results communicated;
  • Value for the scientists of the specific field;
  • Relevance to scientists in other related disciplines;
  • Demonstrates and providing solid evidence for its conclusions;
  • Ethics and fairness to publish only own results.

In general, to be accepted for publication, a paper should represent an advance in their field.


The review processes

The main purpose of the review process is to provide editors with the information they need to make a decision and to help authors on how to strengthen their work to the point where it can be published. Every article received for publication is checked for plagiarism with accredited software before being reviewed by the editors. Smart Energy and Sustainable Environment journal uses iThenticate plagiarism detection software from Turnitin. All submitted manuscripts are read by the editors and only those papers that meet the editorial criteria and the journal's area of interest are selected for review. Papers that do not meet the publication criteria and do not fall within the areas of interest are rejected without external review (these decisions may also be based on informal advice from specialists in the field).

Manuscripts deemed to be of interest to our readers are sent for evaluation, usually to minimum two reviewers (double blind peer review process), sometimes to several if special advice is needed. The review procedure is based on an evaluation format in which reviewers make their own decision, choosing between several possibilities and explaining what they consider should be changed, explained or evaluated in the work. The recommendations for a paper are:

  • Accepted for publication in current form;
  • Accepted for publication with minor editorial correction (re-review recommended);
  • Accepted for publication with mandatory changes (re-revision required);
  • Paper rejected,

Reviewers who reject a paper indicate to the authors the reasons for rejection:

  • Technical/theoretical validity and insufficient conceptual progress.
  • Lack of originality and novelty
  • Excessive publicity or commerciality

Reviewers are welcome to make comments and explain to the authors the decisions made, what needs to be changed and whether further work might justify a resubmission of the paper. Presenting arguments against or in favor of publishing an article is often more useful to editors than a direct recommendation.
We do not suppress reviewer reports and any comments intended for authors are passed on, regardless of what we think of the content. Exceptions include offensive language or comments that reveal confidential information about other issues and avoiding statements that could cause unnecessary offence.
When reviewers agree to review a paper, they must also agree to subsequent reviews. However, editors will not resubmit a resubmitted paper to reviewers if it appears that the authors have not made a serious attempt to address the criticism.

Selecting peer-reviewers

The selection of reviewers is critical to the publication process and editors rely on several factors in choosing reviewers, including expertise, reputation, specific recommendations as well as our own previous experience of a reviewer's characteristics. We consult with potential reviewers before sending them manuscripts for review. During this preliminary consultation process, we inform reviewers that they should be aware that these messages contain confidential information, which should be treated as such. Authors are welcome to suggest suitable independent reviewers and may also request that the journal exclude certain individuals or organizations to avoid conflicts of interest, but it should be understood that the editor's decision on the choice of reviewers is final.

Access to the literature

If a reviewer does not have access to an article required for review of a submitted manuscript, the journal will provide the reviewer with a copy. If fees are charged, depending on various circumstances, the journal can pay the necessary fees and send the article to the reviewer.

Smart Energy and Sustainable Environment is committed to rapid editorial decisions and publication and we ask reviewers to respond promptly within the time agreed. If reviewers anticipate a longer delay than previously expected, we ask them to let us know so that we can keep the authors informed and, where necessary, find alternatives.


We do not disclose the identity of reviewers to authors or other reviewers, even if they specifically request to be identified, as this is solely their decision. We also do not reveal the identities of the author(s) to the reviewers. If reviewers wish to disclose their identity while the manuscript is under review, this should be done only through the editor. If a reviewer recognizes the subject of the work as belonging to an author known to him, and reveals his identity, we expressly request that the authors inform the editor as soon as possible. The review process, in this case, will be repeated with other reviewers, because its result may be flawed. We deplore any attempt by authors to confront reviewers or determine their identity. Our own policy is not to confirm or deny any speculation about the identity of reviewers, and we encourage reviewers to adopt a similar policy.

Smart Energy and Sustainable Environment magazine strives to keep the content of all contributions confidential until the date of publication, except in specific cases. While we make every effort to ensure that reviewers honor their promise of confidentiality, we are not responsible for the conduct of reviewers. Reviewers should be aware that it is our policy to keep their names confidential and that we make every effort to ensure this confidentiality. However, we cannot guarantee that we will maintain this confidentiality in case of a legal action for identity disclosure.

 Ethics and security

 Smart Energy and Sustainable Environment editors may seek advice on submissions not only from technical reviewers, but also on any aspect of a submission that raises ethical, moral or data and/or material access issues, as well as information security, national or global security issues. In such circumstances, advice will usually be sought at the same time as the peer review process.