Criteria for Publications

APL Energy publishes excellent and groundbreaking research that meets the following criteria:

• Novel, original, and timely scientific advances that provide significant new insight and have potential lasting impact on fundamental and applied energy research and technology
• Report convincing and rigorous data, methods, and analysis of results that support the presented findings

While the journal accepts submissions that substantially describe novel quantitative models or theories that deepen our understanding of underlying processes, the presented research must be validated with appropriate experimental results.

Format and Content

APL Energy is published quarterly by AIP Publishing. APL Energy publishes an original research manuscript in the format of an Article.

Articles contain novel and significant findings relevant to the majority of researchers in the field. The timeliness, relevance of the research, and clarity of presentation are important factors that we consider when evaluating Article submissions.

Although there is no length limit, manuscripts should be as concise as possible and present a clear description of the research. As a guideline, the main text of an Article (excluding title and references) should contain approximately 3500 words. Articles should include sufficient experimental information to allow other researchers to reproduce the reported results. Authors may include supplementary material, including video or other multimedia files. In all cases, the editors decide whether the length of an article is appropriate for the information presented.

Reviews are succinct overviews that provide historical background and detail recent progress in topics covered by the journal’s scope (by invitation only). Reviews should be written in a way that enhances or introduces the work to researchers in the field.

Perspectives cover emerging topics or highlight a recent discovery (by invitation only). They provide a forward-looking discussion on the direction of a particular sub-field. Perspectives differ from Reviews in that they can present personal viewpoints from leaders in the field.

Proof of Concept and Prototype articles describe an already demonstrated or intellectual property (IP) protected idea and its pathway to commercial viability. Authors will report the innovation derived from the idea, the problem to be solved, the resulting application, and the Technology Readiness Level. Discussion on further testing requirements, next-level demonstrations, scale-up, marketability, and financial potential is recommended.

These articles are typically by invitation only and the recommended length is 2000 words. If you are interested in submitting a Proof of Concept and Prototype article to APL Energy, please complete the pre-submission proposal form and send it to aplenergy-journalmanager@aip.org.

Author guidelines for Proof of Concepts and Prototypes.

Roadmaps describe a strategic plan to be followed for the future development of a specific energy technology. The content of a Roadmap should focus on the status, advances, challenges, and future directions of subtopics within a field from multiple expert perspectives. As a united review, the Roadmap should provide a high-level overview of the field as a whole. If you are interested in submitting a roadmap to APL Energy please contact the editorial team for the appropriate next steps at aplenergy-journalmanager@aip.org.

Comments and Responses address scientific issues within articles published in the journal. Researchers considering a Comment are encouraged to directly contact the authors of the original article first, as comments will be published only if the same result cannot be achieved through publication of either an Erratum or a new article. We discourage Comments on questions of priority or calling attention to an oversight in a reference list.

Generally, the authors of the original article will be invited to submit a Response to the Comment, and the Comment and Response will be peer reviewed together. If the Comment and Response are both accepted, they will appear in the same journal issue. No further exchange beyond this point will be considered for publication.

Comments and Responses should be no longer than roughly 1000 words.

Errata are corrections of errors in previously published papers. These may be errors introduced in the publication process by the author or the publisher, or errors in the research that were discovered after the paper was published. Errata should be confined to specific errors. Further discussion or additional work that either confirms or denies previous work should be presented as a separate Article or Comment.

Data Availability & Reporting Standards

AIP Publishing believes that science should be shared as widely as possible, and we actively support sustainable models of access to research that ensure the permanence, discoverability, and reuse of published work. All data, methods, and models should be well documented and described either in the main text of the article or supporting information to provide the research community with enough transparency and detail to effectively replicate the findings and reuse results to further their research.

APL Energy requires that authors make any new data publicly available on a repository of the author’s choosing at the time of submission. Any reasons that the material cannot be made available to the readers should be disclosed to the editors.

The Review Process

The Editor-in-Chief, aided by the associate editors, is responsible for the content and editorial matters related to APL Energy. To identify papers that meet the journal’s publication standards, the editors initially screen all submitted manuscripts. Manuscripts that pass the screening are evaluated by expert referees. Generally, two referees are sought, but decisions on publication may be made with additional reviews if required. Generally, we decide whether to publish a manuscript after one or two rounds of review. We will allow additional reviews if deemed necessary by the editors.

Language Standard

It is the authors’ responsibility to ensure that manuscripts are written clearly. A manuscript can be rejected if the scientific meaning is unclear due to poor English. Manuscripts that do not meet APL Energy’s language standard will be returned to the authors for rewrite before peer review, during the review process and/or if provisionally accepted pending language editing.

Because good science has no value unless it is clearly communicated, AIP Publishing recommends that authors use AIPP Author Services to improve the quality of your paper’s written English. AIPP Author Services was developed in line with our commitment to diversity, equity and inclusion for all authors. Using this service ensures that your paper will be free of language deficiencies, so editors and reviewers will be able to fully understand your research during the review process. A native English-speaking subject matter expert of AIP Author Services will correct spelling, grammar and punctuation and verify the use and consistency of technical terms and content in your paper. Note that this is not a requirement or a guarantee of acceptance for review or publication.

Transfers

If your manuscript is not accepted for publication in APL Energy, an editor may recommend a transfer to another AIP Publishing journal for immediate consideration. In some cases, the transfers are offered after consultations with the editors of other AIP Publishing journals.

If you choose to transfer your manuscript, all reviewer reports and editor recommendations will be transferred along with the manuscript. Please visit the receiving journal's website for more information. Manuscripts must meet the receiving journal’s acceptance criteria. Note that there is no guarantee that the receiving journal will publish a transferred manuscript. A list of AIP Publishing journals and descriptions can be found here.

The Appeals Process

Authors may appeal a decision to reject a manuscript. To submit an appeal, authors can visit the APL Energy submission site. To receive further consideration, the authors should request a formal appeal with justification for why the manuscript requires further consideration. If referee reports were included with the rejection letter, the comments must be addressed in the appeal request.

Once an appeal is submitted, the editors will collate all information relevant to the manuscript, including the cover letter, communications with the authors, and referee reports, if any. This information is discussed with the Editor-in-Chief, editors who worked on the manuscript, and any relevant Editorial Board members. When reviewing an appeal, any member of the Editorial Board with a real or perceived conflict of interest will not participate. The discussion will focus on the manuscript under consideration, the range of submissions the journal receives in the area, the overall status of the field, and the editors’ expectations for a paper in the area.

Successful appeals focus on clarifying the suitability or importance of the work if the editors rejected your manuscript because it did not fit APL Energy’s criteria for publication. If the editors rejected your manuscript based on technical issues, your appeal must rebut the technical issues raised in the referee’s reports. In your appeal, please address APL Energy’s acceptance standards. Also, keep in mind that because your manuscript was initially rejected, you must provide an insight or argument that goes beyond what the editor has already learned through the review process, thereby compelling the editor to conclude that your manuscript deserves further consideration.

Consider the following points when making an appeal:

1. Do not include a simple revision of the manuscript to address referees’ comments. If a simple revision would have addressed the main issue, the editors would have returned your manuscript and allowed you to update it. Do include a strong argument for why the editors should reconsider your manuscript.
2. Do not resubmit the manuscript under a new manuscript number, even if it has been updated in response to reviewers’ comments. The editorial office rejects resubmissions; instead, use the appeal process to request that the editors reconsider your manuscript.
3. Do not reinterpret the referees’ reports for the editors. Do provide the editors with new information or insights that might lead them to reconsider publishing your manuscript.
4. Do not provide a list of articles on the same topic that have recently been published in APL Energy. Do provide information that supports the novelty and importance of your work.

Retraction and Correction Policies

AIP Publishing’s policy is based on best practices in academic publishing. We take our responsibility to maintain the integrity and thoroughness of the scholarly record of our content seriously. We place great importance on the accuracy of published articles. Authors may make changes to articles after they have been published online only under the circumstances outlined in AIP Publishing’s Retraction and Correction Policies.