Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement

These Ethical Statements are based on Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)'s Best Practices for Journal Editors and on existing Elsevier policies.

The Journal of Renewable Energies (JREEN) is committed to providing our readers with a high quality academic journal. JREEN maintains the highest ethical standards by applying the following principles:


Submitted manuscripts are evaluated exclusively on the basis of their academic merit without regard to race, sex, sexual orientation, age, disability, religion, ethnicity, position. Political philosophy of the authors.

The manager and editorial staff should not disclose information about the submitted manuscript to anyone except the corresponding author, reviewers and potential reviewers, and other editorial advisers, as appropriate. Unpublished data contained in the submitted manuscript should not be used by the editor in his own research without the express consent of the author.

The editor of the Journal of Renewable Energies decides on the publication of the articles submitted. The editor is guided by the policy of the editorial board, taking into account legal obligations regarding defamation, copyright and plagiarism. The editor can share the decision with other members of the editorial board or with reviewers. Prior to publication, the editors of the Journal of Renewable Energies take care to identify and prevent publication of articles in which a research error has occurred. However, the editors of JREEN have guidelines publish corrections, clarifications, retractions, and apologies if necessary.


The information contained in manuscripts submitted for publication should present the results of the research carried out by the authors as well as an objective discussion of these results and their importance. The underlying data must be presented correctly. Fraudulent and knowingly inaccurate information is considered unethical acts and is not acceptable.

Authors should guarantee that they have written a completely original study, and if they have used work or comments from other people, these should be properly cited.

Normally, an author should not submit manuscripts representing the same study to more than one journal (or book). Submission of the same manuscript in parallel in more than one journal is unethical and unacceptable.

Identification of research carried out by others should always be indicated. Authors should cite publications that influenced the study in question.

Only those who made a significant contribution to the conduct of the study in question are considered as authors. Everyone who contributed to the study should be included in the list of authors. If other people were involved in some aspect of the research project, they should be mentioned in the acknowledgments.

The main author must ensure that all co-authors and they alone are included in the list of authors of the manuscript, that the co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the manuscript, and that they have given their consent to submission of the manuscript.

All authors should indicate in their manuscript conflicts of interest that may affect their interpretation in the manuscript.

If the author discovers a material error or an inaccuracy in his publication, his obligation is to promptly inform the editor and to consider, in agreement with the editor, the withdrawal of the article or the publication of the error information.


Reviewers assist the editor in making decisions and can also assist the author to improve the quality of the manuscript.

A guest reviewer, if he does not feel sufficiently competent to assess the research presented in the manuscript, or if he is unable to provide his opinion in time, should inform the editor without delay, in order to give him the time to contact other reviews.

All manuscripts should be treated as confidential documents. They should not be shown to anyone without the permission of the editor.

Reports must be objective. Personal critical remarks addressed to the author are not admissible. The reviewer's opinion must be clear and reasoned.

The reviewer should identify appropriate publications not cited by the author. Any such indication must be accompanied by an appropriate comment. The reviewer should draw the editor's attention to any similarities or overlaps between the manuscript and previously published material.

Information and ideas obtained by anonymous reviewers are confidential and should not be used for the personal benefit of the reviewer. Reviewers should not accept a manuscript reviewer if it may create a conflict of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships with the authors.