Upon submission, each manuscript undergoes an initial editorial screening by the editorial office or an assigned editor. This stage is intended to determine whether the manuscript is suitable for further consideration and whether it meets the journal’s basic editorial, ethical, and technical requirements.

The initial screening may include an assessment of:

• Scope and relevance in relation to the journal’s Aims and Scope;
• Scientific and methodological soundness at a preliminary level;
• Compliance with submission requirements, including manuscript structure, formatting, language, and required declarations;
• Publication ethics, including potential plagiarism, duplicate or redundant publication, authorship concerns, conflicts of interest, and other relevant ethical issues;
• Completeness of essential submission information, including funding, data availability, and other applicable statements.

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial screening are normally sent to at least two independent and suitably qualified reviewers with relevant expertise. Reviewers are selected according to the subject matter of the manuscript and their academic or professional expertise.

Where practicable, the journal may also consider appropriate institutional and geographic diversity when selecting reviewers. The number of reviewers may vary when necessary, for example, when additional expertise is required or when a reviewer is unable to complete an assigned review.

Under the journal’s double-blind peer review model, the identities of authors and reviewers are not disclosed to each other during the review process. Authors should therefore ensure that the submitted manuscript and supplementary files do not unnecessarily reveal their identities or affiliations where anonymization is required.

Reviewers are generally asked to consider the following aspects of a manuscript, as applicable to the article type and research field:

For studies involving waste streams, waste characterization, material recovery, resource recovery, recycling, reuse, conversion technologies, biological or chemical processes, environmental applications, or circular economy systems, reviewers may also consider the appropriateness of the study design, material or feedstock characterization, process conditions, analytical methods, data quality, environmental implications, resource efficiency, and the relevance of the proposed valorization pathway.

Reviewers provide written comments identifying the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript and, where appropriate, suggestions for improvement. Reviewers may recommend an editorial outcome such as:

After the peer review reports have been received, the editor evaluates the manuscript and the reviewers’ recommendations. Where reviewer opinions differ substantially, the editor may seek an additional review, request further clarification, or make an editorial decision based on the available evidence and relevant expertise.

Authors are notified of the editorial decision and, where applicable, receive the reviewers’ comments. Reviewer identities remain confidential in accordance with the journal’s double-blind review policy.

When a manuscript is invited for revision, authors should carefully address the reviewers’ and editor’s comments and submit:

• A revised version of the manuscript with all changes incorporated; and
• A point-by-point response explaining how each substantive comment has been addressed.

Authors should clearly indicate where changes have been made in the revised manuscript, where appropriate.

A revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers or evaluated by new reviewers, depending on the nature of the revisions and the editor’s assessment. Further rounds of revision and review may be requested when necessary.

Once a manuscript is formally accepted, it enters the copyediting, proofreading, and production process. Depending on the article and journal workflow, this may include:

• Language editing and editorial formatting;
• Typesetting and page layout;
• Verification of bibliographic and article metadata;
• Author proofreading and correction of production errors;
• Final preparation for online publication.

Authors are expected to review the proofs carefully and promptly report any factual, typographical, or production errors. Substantive changes to the accepted manuscript should not normally be introduced at the proof stage unless they are necessary and approved by the editor.

Following final publication, the article is assigned a Digital Object Identifier (DOI) and made available through the journal’s online platform in accordance with the journal’s publishing and licensing policies.

After publication, authors and readers may identify errors or concerns relating to the published article. Where necessary, the journal may publish an appropriate correction, retraction, or other post-publication notice in accordance with the journal’s publishing ethics policies.

Published content is preserved through the journal’s applicable digital archiving and preservation arrangements to support the long-term accessibility of the scholarly record.