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

[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>