Resources Conservation and Recycling Submission Guide

Source: Clarivate JCR 2024, Elsevier editorial disclosures (accessed April 2026).

Source: RCR author guidelines.

Use this page when deciding:

• whether the analytical contribution is substantive
• whether system-level perspective is articulated
• whether quantitative analysis is rigorous

• a clear analytical contribution to circular-economy research
• system-level perspective
• rigorous quantitative analysis
• direct policy or practice relevance
• a cover letter establishing the analytical contribution

• Descriptive case studies without analytical contribution.
• Weak quantitative analysis.
• Missing system-level perspective.
• General environmental research without circular-economy focus.

RCR is a flagship circular-economy and recycling journal.

Analytical-first standard: the journal differentiates from Waste Management (more applied) and Journal of Cleaner Production (broader sustainability) by demanding analytical contributions.

System-level expectation: editors expect findings that extend beyond single case studies.

The 40-50% desk rejection rate: decisive editorial screen.

The strongest RCR cover letters establish:

• the analytical contribution
• the system-level perspective
• the quantitative analysis
• the policy or practice relevance

• Is Resources, Conservation and Recycling a good journal?

Before upload, run your manuscript through an RCR analytical contribution readiness check.

In our pre-submission review work with circular-economy manuscripts targeting RCR, three patterns generate the most consistent desk rejections.

In our experience, roughly 35% of RCR desk rejections trace to descriptive case-study framing. In our experience, roughly 25% involve weak quantitative analysis. In our experience, roughly 20% arise from missing system-level perspective.

• Descriptive case studies without analytical contribution. RCR editors look for analytical advances, not just case descriptions. We observe submissions framed as "we examined recycling in city X" without analytical contribution routinely desk-rejected.

• Weak quantitative analysis. Editors expect rigorous material flow analysis, life cycle assessment, or comparable methods. We see manuscripts with thin quantitative analysis routinely returned.

• Missing system-level perspective. RCR specifically expects findings that extend beyond single case studies. We find papers framed around one organization or one product without broader implications routinely declined. An RCR analytical contribution readiness check can identify whether the package supports a submission.

Clarivate JCR 2024 bibliometric data places RCR among top circular-economy journals.

In pre-submission diagnostic work for top circular-economy journals, we consistently see four signals that distinguish strong submissions from weak ones. First, the contribution must be analytical, not descriptive. Second, system-level perspective should extend beyond single case studies. Third, quantitative analysis should be rigorous (material flow, LCA, system dynamics). Fourth, policy or practice relevance should be direct.

The single most consistent feedback class we deliver in pre-submission diagnostics for RCR is the descriptive-versus-analytical distinction. RCR editors expect analytical contributions, not just case descriptions. Submissions framed as "we measured recycling rates in setting X" routinely receive "where is the analytical contribution?" feedback during desk screening. We coach authors to lead with the analytical question and frame the case study in service of that question. Papers framed as "we developed an analytical framework that quantifies circular-economy outcomes across system X, validated using case data Y" receive better editorial traction. The same logic applies across analytical-circular-economy journals: editors are operating with limited slot inventory, and the submissions that get traction lead with the analytical question.

Beyond the rubric checks, three pre-submission diagnostic patterns recur most often in the manuscripts we review for RCR. First, manuscripts where the abstract reports case-study outcomes without articulating the analytical contribution are flagged at desk for descriptive framing. We recommend the abstract's central sentences state the analytical question, the methodological contribution, and the system-level finding. Second, manuscripts where quantitative analysis uses simple averages without uncertainty analysis are flagged for analytical gaps. We recommend including uncertainty quantification appropriate to the methodology. Third, manuscripts that lack engagement with RCR's recent issues are at risk of being told the contribution doesn't fit the publication conversation.

The strongest manuscripts we coach distinguish themselves on three operational behaviors. First, they confine the cover letter to one page and use it to make the case for fit, contribution, and significance, not to summarize the abstract. Second, they include a one-sentence elevator pitch in the cover letter's opening that the editor can use when discussing the manuscript internally. Third, they identify the specific recent papers in the journal that this manuscript builds on and the specific competing or contradicting work; this signals the authors are operating inside the publication conversation rather than outside it.