---
name: resources-conservation-and-recycling
description: Use when targeting Resources, Conservation & Recycling or deciding whether a resource-efficiency/circular-economy manuscript fits this venue. Encodes the journal's fit, the materials-and-waste circularity contribution bar, material-flow-analysis expectations, house style, official-submission re-check, and desk-reject heuristics.
---

# 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

```text
[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>
```