Agent Skills
› brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills
› resources-conservation-and-recycling
resources-conservation-and-recycling
GitHub用于评估稿件是否符合《Resources, Conservation & Recycling》期刊定位，指导资源效率与循环经济研究的重构。聚焦材料流分析、回收技术及量化循环性贡献，提供选题建议、拒稿启发及投稿前复核。
Trigger Scenarios
作者指定该期刊并需进行适配性检查
需将材料流或回收研究重构为量化循环性贡献
在RCR与其他期刊间犹豫
需要了解该刊的材料/废物循环性标准及拒稿规则
Install
npx skills add brycewang-stanford/Awesome-Journal-Skills --skill resources-conservation-and-recycling -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"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.mdand../../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>
Version History
- 1839142 Current 2026-07-05 12:18
