resources-conservation-and-recycling

Resources, Conservation & Recycling (resources-conservation-and-recycling)

Journal positioning

Resources, Conservation & Recycling (RCR) is the Elsevier journal for resource efficiency,

waste management, recycling, and the circular economy of materials — material-flow and

substance-flow analysis, recycling and resource-recovery technologies and systems, and the

conservation and reuse of materials. Its defining expectation is a **materials-and-waste

circularity contribution**: a study that quantifies, improves, or systematizes how materials

are conserved, recovered, recycled, or kept in productive use. Relative to the Journal of

Cleaner Production's broader cleaner-production/sustainability remit, RCR is anchored in the

physical reality of materials and waste flows. A general sustainability-management essay, or a

recycling case with no quantified material outcome, is a weak fit. This skill is a **fit /

venue-selection / re-framing** tool. It does not replace the journal's current author

guidelines. Before submitting, re-check the live RCR submission guidance.

When to trigger

• The author names Resources, Conservation & Recycling and wants a fit/framing check for a

resource-efficiency or recycling paper.

• A material-flow, recycling-technology, or resource-recovery study must be re-framed around a

quantified materials-circularity contribution.

• The author is deciding between RCR and the Journal of Cleaner Production, or between RCR and

a process-engineering venue.

• The author needs RCR's materials/waste-circularity bar (MFA/SFA, recovery yields) and

desk-reject heuristics.

Scope & topic fit

• Material-flow analysis (MFA) and substance-flow analysis (SFA): stocks, flows, losses, and

efficiency at product, sector, urban, national, or global scale.

• Recycling and resource-recovery technologies and systems: collection, sorting, processing,

and upgrading of post-consumer and industrial materials, with quantified yields and quality.

• Circular-economy strategies for materials: reuse, remanufacturing, urban mining, and

closing material loops, with measured circularity indicators.

• Waste management systems and their resource, environmental, and economic performance.
• Critical-materials, secondary-resource, and by-product valorization with quantitative

recovery and quality outcomes.

• Indicators, accounting frameworks, and data infrastructure for measuring material

circularity and resource efficiency.

Method & evidence bar

• The contribution must deliver a quantified materials/waste-circularity result: flows,

recovery rates, recycled-content, losses, or resource-efficiency gains, not qualitative claims.

• MFA/SFA studies must state system boundaries, reference year, data sources and quality,

mass-balance closure, and uncertainty in the flows.

• Recycling/recovery technology claims require measured yields, product quality, and where

relevant energy and reagent inputs, benchmarked against current practice.

• Circularity indicators must be defined and reproducible; avoid ad-hoc metrics without

justification or comparability.

• Systems, scenario, and policy analyses need defensible data, baseline comparison, and

sensitivity/uncertainty treatment.

• Conclusions about resource savings must follow from the quantified balance, not from

optimistic extrapolation of a lab-scale result.

Structure & house style

• Standard research-article format; the journal also publishes reviews and shorter formats —

re-check current article types and length on the live guide.

• The introduction must frame the materials/waste-circularity gap and the quantified

contribution, not a generic sustainability motivation.

• Methods must make the material accounting reproducible — boundaries, data, mass balance,

and uncertainty for MFA/SFA; experimental detail and yields for recovery technology.

• Figures should be flow- and balance-oriented (Sankey diagrams, stock/flow accounts,

recovery-yield comparisons), with full inventories and data in SI.

• Graphical abstract and highlights are expected; re-check current specifications on the live guide.

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 Resources, Conservation & Recycling page you checked.

• Search the live site for "Resources, Conservation and Recycling guide for authors" and follow the current Elsevier version.
• Re-check article types, length, abstract, and graphical-abstract/highlights requirements.
• Confirm MFA/SFA reporting expectations (boundaries, reference year, mass-balance closure, uncertainty).
• Re-check data-availability, flow/inventory data-table deposition, and supplementary-data policy.
• Re-check competing-interests, funding, author-contribution, and AI-use disclosure, and open-access terms.
• If the live official instructions conflict with this skill, the official instructions win.

Pre-submission self-check

• [ ] The result is a quantified materials/waste-circularity outcome (flows, yields, losses, recycled content).
• [ ] MFA/SFA reports boundaries, reference year, data quality, mass-balance closure, and uncertainty.
• [ ] Recovery/recycling technology yields and product quality are measured and benchmarked.
• [ ] Circularity indicators are defined, justified, and reproducible.
• [ ] Resource-saving conclusions follow from the quantified balance, not lab-scale extrapolation.
• [ ] Highlights, graphical abstract, and reproducible accounting are prepared per the live guide.

Common desk-reject triggers

• A general sustainability or management essay with no quantified material flow or recovery result.
• MFA/SFA with undefined boundaries, no mass-balance closure, or no uncertainty.
• Recycling-technology claims with no measured yield, quality, or benchmark to current practice.
• Ad-hoc circularity metrics with no definition, justification, or comparability.
• Lab-scale recovery extrapolated to system-wide resource savings without justification.
• Scope mismatch: a broad cleaner-production/sustainability or pure-engineering paper with no materials-circularity contribution.

Re-routing decision

• Broad cleaner-production/sustainability scope (technology, management, policy, LCA) → journal-of-cleaner-production.
• Pollutant emission/impact of waste rather than material recovery → environmental-pollution.
• Critical/invited synthesis of the field → annual-review-of-environment-and-resources.
• Treatment-engineering/technology emphasis → environmental-science-and-technology.
• Broad solutions/sustainability-science framing → nature-sustainability.

Output format

[Fit] High / Medium / Low (one-line reason)
[Target] Resources, Conservation & Recycling
[Topic tags] <2–3 closest circular-materials topics>
[Circularity contribution] <the quantified flow/recovery/efficiency result>
[Method/evidence] <are boundaries, mass balance, yields, and uncertainty reported?>
[Top risk] <the single most likely reason for rejection>
[Official items to re-check] <article type / MFA reporting / highlights / data policy / disclosures>
[Re-route suggestion] <if not a fit, a better-matched venue>