--- 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] [Synthesis bar] [Top risk] [Official items to re-check] [Re-route suggestion] ```