2020.5.1, submission; 2020.7.11, received one major revision, one minor revision and one rejection. Finally, I argued on the rejection. The editor said that the manuscript should be resubmitted after revision according to the comments of the reviewers; 2020.7.20, the manuscript was submitted after revision; 2020.8.19, received one major revision, one minor revision, and finally major revision was required; 2020.8.29, I revised and responded; 2020.9.4, accepted! Although the whole process was bumpy and tense, but in the end, there was a good result. Generally speaking, I personally feel that this journal pays particular attention to innovation and mechanism, and it must have sufficient experimental data to illustrate the mechanism. I hope my experience can help everyone! At the same time, I hope I can continue to have articles published in this journal in the future!

(13) Thank | 学术小金

My own first paper in EES has been accepted last year after revision. The second one was submitted in July, and initial assessment lasted for 10 days, with editor for 2 days, under review for 50 days. 2 reviewers, all required minor revisions; the editor request a revision, and pointed out that it will be returned to 2 reviewers. There was one adjunct reviewer as well. We revised it for 3 weeks, and after returning, it was with editor for a week, and was sent for review just now. The IF of this journal is super high. I feel that the articles here are not bad in my field. I hope that there will be good results. It is slow, with various troubles. I feel that it will not be possible to get any results within half a year.

(10) Thank | angew clover

An article rejected after revision by Nature Catalysis was submitted to EES. The first round of reply was relatively fast. I received the comments in about 2 weeks. There were three reviewers, one required a minor revision, and two gave rejections. Most of the comments were concentrated on the energy performance test method. I felt that the two reviewers rejected it were not that cared for fundamental science and they emphasized that our work lacked application value in engineering (the materials used are too expensive). After the revision, we applied to resubmit the manuscript. In the second round, one agreed to accept the manuscript and two rejected the it. The two reviewers that rejected it this time are still the previous ones. They pointed out that our novelty is not enough. We felt that their views were inconsistent, and decided to withdraw the manuscript. In general, these two reviewers were very arrogant and focused on performance testing. They chose to ignore the innovative points of our article (and did not even raise any questions in this aspect). We will not consider EES any longer.

(25) Thank | Daniel93

Review period is about 2 months. Rejected for lack of novelty, but appealed.

(0) Thank | Anonymous

3.13 submitted
3.19 with editor and in peer review
4.22 major revision
6.1 submitted
6.10 accept

(0) Thank | Right

It has not reached the editor's hands in ten days!!!

(0) Thank | haheihei

5.29 with editor

(0) Thank | zjf1993

5.19 SUBMITTED
5.28 Still in Initial assessment
Not sure what's going on

(0) Thank | zjf1993

The submission email will receive a "Track the progress of your Energy & Environmental Science submission" email, which contains a link to track the status of your manuscript.

(0) Thank | Shaw Fang

May I ask where can I find information on where to see the reviewers accepting the manuscript?

(0) Thank | 情定

2.5 submitted
2.10 with editor
2.11 in peer review
2.23 1 reviewer agreed
3.1 1 reviewer agreed; 1 review received
3.8 in peer review; 2 reviewers agreed; 1 review received
3.15 in peer review; 2 reviewers agreed; 2 reviews received
3.31 in peer review; 3 reviewers agreed; 2 reviews received
4.2 in peer review; 3 reviewers agreed; 3 reviews received
4.3 major revision (2 Minor Revision, 1 Reject)
4.18 reminder
4.22 submitted
4.22 with editor
4.22 in peer review
5.6 accept

(0) Thank | Shaw Fang

After arbitration, the editor will find an arbitration reviewer, but will the submission status change from "in peer review" to "with editor"?

(0) Thank | 飘来飘去的蒲公英

Not quite suitable for the journal, transfer to another journal. 
2025.4.23 Checking submission and files
2025.4.23 Initial assessment
2025.5.1 With editor
2025.5.6 transfer

(0) Thank | kk5678

Do we need to show the revised draft to the previous reviewers after submission?

(0) Thank | Shaw Fang

Data availability statements for Energy & Environmental Science are not available on the homepage.

(0) Thank | 秋秋无语了

What are the Data availability statements for Energy & Environmental Science? There is no information on the homepage.

(0) Thank | 秋秋无语了

Does the longer our time, the greater the probability of rejection?

(0) Thank | A_Ac

The first review took a long time, and it seemed to be due to the editor's reasons. After each reviewer completed their review, the editor would then invite the next reviewer, causing a significant delay.

(0) Thank | HPPsz

Please translate the following passage into English: 04.01 Accept

(0) Thank | HPPsz

2025.02.22 EES-minor revision
2025.03.12 EES-resubmitted to revision
2025.03.13 EES-Accepted
Thank you for the editors and reviewers' kindness. 
The second revision of EES during my master's degree has arrived~

(0) Thank | 离子迁移火花

Inviting two people at once

(0) Thank | 离子迁移火花

Unable to see.

(0) Thank | 离子迁移火花

Why is this journal classified as materials?

(0) Thank | hw

Is the reason it took so long to review because there was no reviewer willing to review it?

(0) Thank | Shaw Fang

02.17 Major Revision. 3 reviewers, 2 revisions, 1 transfer. No specific deadline given by the editor for revisions.

(0) Thank | HPPsz