Submissions

Author Guidelines

Recycling and Sustainable Development (RSD) publishes original research articles and review papers in the fields of recycling, environmental engineering, waste and resource management, and sustainable development.

Submitted manuscripts must present original, unpublished work and must not be under consideration by another journal. Expanded conference papers are acceptable provided that they include a substantial extension of the original contribution and that the prior publication is clearly disclosed.

Manuscripts should be written in clear and professional English, with sufficient experimental or methodological detail to allow reproducibility and independent verification of results. Both experimental and theoretical studies are welcome, as well as interdisciplinary contributions relevant to sustainable development.

Submission Process

RSD applies a transparent and consistent editorial workflow for all submissions. Policies related to ethics, peer review, data sharing, conflicts of interest, and appeals are uniform across all sections and are defined in the journal’s central policy (About the  Journal).

Submission and Communication
All correspondence related to submission, peer review, editorial decisions, and revisions is conducted through the journal’s editorial office through the platform. The corresponding author acts on behalf of all co-authors throughout the process.

Initial Editorial Screening
Each manuscript is checked for:

• compliance with the journal’s scope,

• originality and ethical standards,

• basic formatting and completeness.

Manuscripts failing to meet these criteria may be returned or rejected prior to peer review.

Peer Review
Eligible manuscripts undergo single-blind peer review by at least two independent reviewers. Editorial decisions are based on scientific merit, reviewer reports, and compliance with journal policies.

Transparency and Policy Consistency
All sections of the journal operate under the same editorial, ethical, and review policies. No section-specific exceptions apply unless explicitly stated in the central policy documentation.

Manuscript Preparation Guidelines

Authors are requested to prepare manuscripts carefully to ensure efficient review and publication.

General Formatting

• Manuscripts should be prepared in Microsoft Word

• Font: Times New Roman, 12 pt

• Line spacing: double

• Page format: A4, margins 2.5 cm

• Single-column layout

• Pages, tables, and figures must be numbered consecutively

Avoid manual formatting. Final layout and styling are handled by the editorial and copy-editing team.

Review the information you have entered before you complete your submission. You can change any of the details displayed here by clicking the edit button at the top of each section.

Once you complete your submission, a member of our editorial team will be assigned to review it. Please ensure the details you have entered here are as accurate as possible.

Article Structure

Title
Concise, specific, and informative. Avoid abbreviations and excessive length.

Authors and Affiliations
Provide full names, institutional affiliations, email addresses, and ORCID identifiers where available. At least one author must be designated as the corresponding author.

Abstract
Single paragraph (approximately 150–250 words) summarizing:

• background and purpose,
• methods,
• key results,
• main conclusions.
  No references, figures, or equations.

Keywords
Three to six keywords relevant to indexing and discoverability.

Introduction
Describe the research background, knowledge gap, objectives, and significance. Clearly emphasize the novelty of the work in the final paragraph.

Materials and Methods
Provide sufficient detail to allow replication. Describe materials, equipment, experimental design, data collection, and analysis methods. Established methods may be cited; new methods must be described in detail.

Results
Present results clearly and objectively using tables and figures where appropriate. Avoid interpretation in this section.

Discussion
Interpret results in the context of existing literature. Discuss significance, limitations, and implications. Results and Discussion may be combined if appropriate.

Conclusions
Concise summary of the main findings and contributions, independent of figures or references.

Acknowledgments
Optional. Recognize contributions and institutional or technical support.

Funding
Disclose all sources of financial support or explicitly state if none.

Data Availability
Provide a Data Accessibility Statement in line with the journal’s Research Data Policy.

Figures and Tables

• Must be embedded near first citation in the text
• Numbered consecutively
• Clear captions provided
• Figures should be high resolution and legible
• SI units must be used throughout

References and Citation Style

The Jorunal uses an author–year citation system.

In-text citations

• One author: (Author, Year)
• Two authors: (Author and Author, Year)
• More than two authors: (Author et al., Year)

Reference list

• Alphabetical order
• No numbering
• All cited works must appear in the reference list and vice versa
• Full author lists must be provided

Example (journal article):
Author(s), “Title,” Journal Name Volume, no. Issue (Year): pages, https://doi.org/DOI

Common Reasons for Rejection

Understanding the most frequent reasons for rejection can help authors prepare stronger submissions and reduce unnecessary delays. The following issues account for the majority of rejected manuscripts at Recycling and Sustainable Development (RSD).

Out of Scope

The manuscript does not align with the journal’s aims and scope, or the connection to recycling, environmental engineering, waste management, or sustainable development is weak or not clearly demonstrated.

Lack of Originality or Novelty

The study does not provide sufficient new scientific or technical insight. Incremental improvements, routine case studies, or confirmatory results without clear added value may be rejected. For expanded conference papers, insufficient new content (less than 30%) is a common reason for rejection.

Insufficient Scientific Quality

• Inadequate experimental design or methodology
• Missing or unclear description of materials, methods, or data analysis
• Conclusions not supported by the presented results
• Lack of statistical validation or error analysis where required

Ethical or Policy Non-Compliance

• Evidence of plagiarism, duplicate publication, or undeclared overlap with prior work
• Missing conflict of interest disclosure or authorship irregularities
• Failure to comply with data availability, ethics approval, or research integrity requirements

Poor Manuscript Structure or Clarity

• Unclear research objectives or poorly defined research questions
• Disorganized presentation of results and discussion
• Excessive repetition or inconsistency between sections
• Figures or tables that are unclear, low quality, or poorly explained

Inadequate English Language Quality

Manuscripts with language issues that significantly hinder understanding may be rejected prior to peer review. Authors are strongly encouraged to ensure professional-level English before submission.

Incomplete Submission

• Missing mandatory documents (e.g. cover letter, authorship or conflict of interest statements)
• Incorrect or inconsistent reference formatting
• Failure to follow basic manuscript preparation guidelines

Weak Engagement with Relevant Literature

Insufficient review of recent and relevant literature, lack of context within the current state of the art, or inappropriate citation practices.