Progress In Energy And Combustion Science

---
name: progress-in-energy-and-combustion-science
description: Use when targeting Progress in Energy and Combustion Science or deciding whether an energy/combustion review manuscript fits this venue. Encodes the journal's review-only fit, the critical-synthesis-and-authority bar, comprehensiveness rigor, house style, the review-vs-primary-research routing, official-submission re-check, and desk-reject heuristics.
---

# Progress in Energy and Combustion Science (progress-in-energy-and-combustion-science)

## Journal positioning

Progress in Energy and Combustion Science (Elsevier) is a **review journal**: it
publishes authoritative, comprehensive, critical reviews in energy and combustion
science, not primary research. Its articles are long, scholarly syntheses that map a
field, weigh conflicting evidence, expose open problems, and set the agenda for future
work — frequently invited or proposed in advance. The single most common misfit is a
primary-research manuscript (new experiments or one model) submitted as if it were a
review; another is a shallow literature survey that catalogs papers without critical
judgment. A submission succeeds only if its authors can credibly claim field-level
authority and deliver a genuinely critical, integrative account. This skill is a
**fit / venue-selection / re-framing** tool. It does not replace the journal's current
official author guidelines. Before submitting, re-check the live Guide for Authors on
the Elsevier site and any pre-submission/proposal expectations.

## When to trigger

- The author wants to place a comprehensive review of an energy or combustion topic and
  is assessing whether it meets this venue's authority and depth bar.
- A manuscript must be re-framed away from primary research toward a critical,
  agenda-setting synthesis — or re-routed because it is in fact primary research.
- The author is deciding between this review venue and a primary-research energy/
  combustion journal, or between it and a shorter perspective/mini-review elsewhere.
- The author needs the comprehensiveness and critical-synthesis bar and the venue's
  desk-reject heuristics.

## Scope & topic fit

- Combustion science: chemical kinetics and mechanisms, turbulent and laminar
  combustion, ignition, pollutant formation, soot, and combustion diagnostics.
- Energy conversion and utilization: fuels (conventional, bio-, hydrogen, e-fuels),
  engines, gas turbines, and combustion-based power systems.
- Fundamentals bridging chemistry, transport, and thermodynamics as they govern energy
  and combustion processes.
- Emerging energy-and-combustion topics where a critical state-of-the-field synthesis
  is timely and absent from the literature.
- Cross-cutting reviews that integrate modeling, experiment, and diagnostics into a
  coherent, judgment-bearing picture.

## Method & evidence bar

- The contribution is a **critical synthesis**: the review must compare, reconcile, and
  judge the literature — not merely summarize it paper by paper.
- Comprehensiveness is expected within a well-defined scope: the major bodies of work,
  including conflicting results, must be covered and weighed against evidence.
- The review must articulate what is established, what is contested, and what is open,
  and ideally propose a roadmap or unifying framework.
- Authority matters: the treatment must reflect deep command of the field's methods,
  data, and controversies, with balanced rather than self-promotional citation.
- Figures and tables should synthesize (comparative tables, mechanism maps, trend
  plots) rather than reproduce single-study results uncritically.

## Structure & house style

- Long-form review structure: a framing introduction, a logically organized body that
  builds an argument across sub-topics, and a forward-looking outlook — re-check
  current article-type and length expectations on the live guide.
- The scope and boundaries of the review must be stated explicitly and defended; the
  narrative must have a thesis, not just coverage.
- Comparative tables and synthesis figures are central; original schematics that
  integrate disparate findings strengthen the contribution.
- A reference base commensurate with a comprehensive review is expected; citation must
  be balanced and current, with clear attribution.

## Official-submission checklist

- Before giving submission-ready advice, read `../../resources/source-basis.md` and
  `../../resources/official-source-map.md`; start from the Elsevier anchors, then cite
  the current Progress in Energy and Combustion Science Guide for Authors page you checked.
- Search the live site for "Progress in Energy and Combustion Science guide for authors"
  and follow the current Elsevier/Editorial Manager version.
- Re-check whether a pre-submission proposal or invitation is expected and the article
  types and length expectations for reviews.
- Confirm figure-permission/reuse requirements, since reviews reproduce or adapt
  published figures.
- Re-check competing-interests, funding, author-contribution, and AI-use disclosure
  requirements.
- If the live official instructions conflict with this skill, the official
  instructions win.

## Pre-submission self-check

- [ ] The manuscript is a critical, integrative review — not primary research or a paper-by-paper survey.
- [ ] The scope is explicitly defined and the review has a clear thesis or unifying framework.
- [ ] Conflicting results are covered and weighed against evidence, not omitted.
- [ ] The outlook articulates what is established, contested, and open, with a forward agenda.
- [ ] Synthesis tables/figures integrate the literature rather than reproducing single studies.
- [ ] Any pre-submission/proposal expectation and figure-reuse permissions are addressed.

## Common desk-reject triggers

- Primary-research manuscript (new experiments/one model) dressed as a review.
- Shallow literature survey that lists studies without critical comparison or judgment.
- Narrow scope or self-citation-heavy treatment that does not reflect field authority.
- Missing major or conflicting bodies of work within the claimed scope.
- No forward-looking synthesis: a summary that ends without identifying open problems.
- Out-of-scope topic with only a thin energy/combustion connection.

## Re-routing decision

- Primary combustion/energy-conversion experiments or modeling → a primary-research combustion/energy journal.
- Systems-level energy modeling and assessment as primary research → `applied-energy`.
- Device-level electrochemical power primary research → `journal-of-power-sources`.
- Energy-materials mechanism primary research → `energy-storage-materials`.
- Broad, highest-profile energy synthesis/perspective → `nature-energy` or `joule` (different format/selectivity; re-check).

## Output format

```text
[Fit] High / Medium / Low (one-line reason)
[Target] Progress in Energy and Combustion Science
[Topic tags] <2–3 closest energy/combustion subtopics>
[Review type] critical synthesis / agenda-setting review (NOT primary research)
[Authority/scope] <is field-level authority + defined scope credible?>
[Synthesis bar] <does it weigh conflicting evidence and set a forward agenda?>
[Top risk] <the single most likely reason for rejection>
[Official items to re-check] <proposal/invitation / length / figure permissions / disclosures>
[Re-route suggestion] <if primary research or out of scope, a better-matched venue>
```