Bioresource Technology Formatting Requirements: Complete Author Guide

The abstract follows Elsevier's general guidelines with some journal-specific expectations.

• Word limit: 200 words for research articles, 100 for short communications
• Structure: Unstructured single paragraph, but should cover objective, methods, results, and conclusions
• Citations: Not allowed in the abstract
• Keywords: 4 to 6 keywords required, immediately after the abstract
• Abbreviations: Define at first use in the abstract; redefine in the body

Bioresource Technology reviewers tend to be very quantitative. Your abstract should include specific numbers: conversion efficiencies, removal rates, yields, and other measurable outcomes. "Methane yield reached 320 mL CH4/g VS" is the level of specificity expected. Vague statements like "performance was improved" won't pass review in this journal.

The keyword selection matters for reviewer assignment. Bioresource Technology covers a wide scope from anaerobic digestion to lignocellulosic biomass to microbial fuel cells. Precise keywords help the handling editor match your paper to reviewers with the right expertise.

Bioresource Technology follows Elsevier's standard figure guidelines.

Figure specifications:

There's no strict cap on figures, but the 6,000-word limit naturally constrains the paper. Most published articles include 4 to 8 figures and 2 to 3 tables. The journal publishes a lot of process flow diagrams, characterization spectra (FTIR, XRD, SEM), and kinetic curves.

Graphical abstract: Optional but encouraged. The format is a single image at 531 x 1328 pixels minimum. For Bioresource Technology specifically, effective graphical abstracts tend to show a process schematic with key quantitative outcomes. Simple flowcharts with conversion numbers outperform complex multi-panel layouts.

Color is free online. SEM micrographs, XRD patterns, and spectral data should be in color when it improves readability. False-color SEM images are common and accepted.

Tables in Bioresource Technology often contain comparative data: your results versus literature values. The journal encourages this kind of benchmarking. Make sure comparison tables cite all sources and include experimental conditions alongside performance metrics.

Bioresource Technology uses Elsevier's standard numbered citation style.

In-text citations: Bracketed numbers: [1], [2], [1,2], [1-3]. Sequential numbering based on order of first appearance.

Reference list format:

[1] A.B. Author, C.D. Author, Title of article, J. Abbrev. Name Volume (Year) Pages.

Formatting specifics:

• Author names: Initials then surname (e.g., "J.K. Smith")
• Article titles included in the reference
• Journal names abbreviated per ISO 4 / CASSI standards
• Volume in bold
• Year in parentheses
• DOIs required when available
• URLs for online-only sources with access dates

Reference counts in Bioresource Technology typically range from 30 to 50 for original research. Reviews can cite 100 or more. The journal expects recent references. A reference list dominated by papers from before 2015 will prompt reviewer questions about whether the work addresses current gaps.

One quirk specific to this journal: reviewers in bioresource technology fields expect to see Chinese research groups well-represented in the citations. Given that a substantial portion of bioresource research originates from China, a reference list that completely ignores this body of work may signal an incomplete literature review.

Supplementary material follows Elsevier's standard system.

Common supplementary items for Bioresource Technology:

• Detailed characterization data (full spectra, additional SEM/TEM images)
• Extended kinetic modeling results
• Mass balance calculations
• Additional experimental conditions and replication data
• Raw datasets and statistical analyses

Submit supplementary files through the Editorial Manager system as separate files. Label them clearly (Fig. S1, Table S1, etc.) and cite them in the main text. All supplementary material goes through peer review.

The 50 MB per file limit applies. For large datasets (genome sequences, metabolomics data), use public repositories such as NCBI, MetaboLights, or Zenodo and cite the accession number.

Bioresource Technology encourages reproducibility. Supplementary material that enables other researchers to replicate your work (detailed protocols, reactor specifications, microbial culture conditions) is valued by reviewers and editors.

Mendeley Data integration: Elsevier's data repository Mendeley Data is linked to the submission system. You can deposit datasets directly and have them linked to your article with a DOI. This is increasingly expected for data-heavy papers.

These are details specific to Bioresource Technology that regular authors know:

Highlights are enforced strictly. The 85-character limit per highlight is checked by the submission system. It won't let you proceed if any highlight exceeds this. Count characters carefully, including spaces and punctuation. Authors routinely have to rewrite highlights multiple times during submission.

Scope is narrow and enforced. Bioresource Technology is specifically about bioresources and biotechnology. Papers on purely chemical processes (no biological component), water treatment without a bioresource angle, or energy systems without a biomass focus will be desk-rejected. The editors check scope before anything else.

Nomenclature for biomass characterization. The journal expects standardized terminology for biomass characterization parameters. Use "volatile solids (VS)" not "organic matter content," "chemical oxygen demand (COD)" not "organic load," and report all biomass composition on both dry weight and as-received bases. Inconsistent terminology triggers reviewer comments.

Statistical requirements. Bioresource Technology expects error bars on all quantitative figures and statistical analysis (ANOVA, t-tests, or equivalent) for all comparisons. Replicates must be stated explicitly. "Experiments were performed in triplicate" is the minimum expectation. Single-run results without replication are a common reason for rejection.

Ethical statements for microbiology. If your work involves genetically modified organisms, biosafety level classification must be stated. If human or animal waste is used as a bioresource, appropriate ethical approvals must be documented.

CRediT author statement. Required for all submissions. Contributions described using the CRediT taxonomy.

Declaration of competing interests. Mandatory. Must be included even when no conflicts exist.

These get flagged during technical review:

1. Highlight character count. The single most common formatting failure. Write highlights in a text editor and count characters before pasting into the submission system.

1. Units and chemical formulas. Use SI units throughout. Chemical formulas should use subscripts properly (CH4, not CH4). Report gas volumes at STP unless otherwise stated.

1. Abbreviations list. Not formally required, but reviewers in this field expect a nomenclature/abbreviations section for papers with many technical terms. Place it after the abstract and keywords.

1. Figure citation order. All figures must be cited in the text in sequential order. Fig. 1 before Fig. 2 before Fig. 3. Out-of-order citations will be flagged.

1. Data availability statement. Now required for all Elsevier journals. Include it after the acknowledgments section.

In our pre-submission review work with manuscripts targeting Bioresource Technology, four patterns generate the most consistent desk-rejection outcomes.

Highlights missing or incorrectly formatted. Bioresource Technology is an Elsevier journal requiring 3-5 bullet highlights, each no longer than 85 characters including spaces. Papers submitted without highlights or with bullets that exceed the character limit are returned administratively through Editorial Manager before peer review. This is among the most frequent procedural failures at this journal.

Scope is biomass characterization without a conversion or utilization link. Bioresource Technology's scope centers on converting biological resources into energy, fuels, chemicals, or materials. Papers that characterize feedstock composition (lignocellulose content, elemental analysis) without demonstrating a conversion process or application pathway are desk-rejected for scope, even when the characterization data is complete.

Yield data without techno-economic or life cycle framing. Reviewers at Bioresource Technology increasingly expect either a techno-economic assessment (TEA) or a life cycle analysis (LCA) for conversion studies, particularly for processes proposed at scale. Papers reporting laboratory-scale yield improvements without any scaling context or environmental metric are flagged as lacking practical relevance.

Data availability statement absent. Elsevier mandates a data availability statement for all Bioresource Technology submissions. Papers missing this statement are returned before peer review. The statement must indicate where the underlying data are available (supplementary files, repository with DOI, or a statement that data are available on request).

A Bioresource Technology submission readiness check evaluates manuscript scope, Elsevier formatting compliance, and data availability against these desk-rejection patterns.