All submitted articles should be original, previously unpublished research results. Submitted articles must not be under consideration for publication elsewhere

Please submit your manuscript through the online system or via email attachment to the Editorial Office at A unique manuscript number will be provided to the corresponding author within 48 hours. Please note that SRMJ exclusively accepts manuscripts through electronic submission. We encourage authors to send their manuscripts as email attachments, including the text, tables, and figures, in a Microsoft Word document format.

To facilitate the publication of an article in the Sustainable Resources Management Journal, authors are required to submit a completed copyright transfer agreement. Prior to publication, all authors must endorse the copyright agreement. This agreement encompasses exclusive rights for the reproduction and dissemination of the article, encompassing reprints, photographic reproductions, microfilm, and other analogous reproductions, including translations. To proceed, kindly download the copyright transfer agreement, complete it, and return it alongside the article. For detailed guidelines on article formatting and author instructions, you can access the downloadable document using the button below or explore the comprehensive instructions available in the expandable menu on the left side.

Upon submission, all manuscripts undergo an initial review by the designated editor. If the editor deems the manuscript suitable for potential publication, it is subsequently sent to a minimum of two expert reviewers in the respective field. The ultimate decisions—ranging from acceptance, acceptance with minor revisions, acceptance with major revisions, to rejection—are typically rendered by the responsible editor. These determinations are shaped by a careful consideration of the feedback, comments, and suggestions provided by the reviewers during the review process.

Comment Form and Reviewers Guide

Reviewers are important to the success of peer-reviewed academic journals. Reviewers are responsible for providing the editors with professional, technical, and unbiased feedback regarding an article in question, while editors are responsible for assigning related reviewers to submitted articles, gathering their feedback, and making decisions regarding the articles accordingly.

Purpose of Peer Review

Peer review is a critical element of scholarly publication, and one of the major cornerstones of the scientific process.

Peer Review serves two key functions:

1. Ensures research is properly verified before being published

2.  the quality of the research

Are there any potential conflicts of interest

A conflict of interest will not necessarily eliminate you from reviewing an article, but full disclosure to the editor will allow them to make an informed decision. For example; if you work in the same department or institute as one of the authors; if you have worked on a paper previously with an author; or you have a professional or financial connection to the article. These should all be listed when responding to the editor’s invitation for review.

Conducting the Review

Reviewing needs to be conducted confidentially, the article you have been asked to review should not be disclosed to a third party. You should not attempt to contact the author. Be aware when you submit your review that any recommendations you make will contribute to the final decision made by the editor.

You would be expected to evaluate the article according to the following:


Is the article sufficiently novel and interesting to warrant publication? Does it add to the canon of knowledge? Does the article adhere to the journal’s standards? Is the research question an important one? In order to determine its originality and appropriateness for the journal, it might be helpful to think of the research in terms of what percentile it is in? Is it in the top 25% of papers in this field?


Is the article clearly laid out? Are all the key elements (where relevant) present: abstract, introduction, methodology, results, conclusions? Consider each element in turn:

1.Title: Does it clearly describe the article?

2. Abstract: Does it reflect the content of the article?

3. Introduction: Does it describe what the author hoped to achieve accurately, and clearly state the problem being investigated? Normally, the introduction should summarize relevant research to provide context and explain what other authors’ findings, if any, are being challenged or extended. It should describe the experiment, the hypothesis(es), and the general experimental design or method.

4. Method: Does the author accurately explain how the data was collected? Is the design suitable for answering the question posed? Is there sufficient information present for you to replicate the research? Does the article identify the procedures followed? Are these ordered in a meaningful way? If the methods are new, are they explained in detail? Was the sampling appropriate? Have the equipment and materials been adequately described? Does the article make it clear what type of data was recorded; has the author been precise in describing measurements?

5. Results and Discussion: This is where the author/s should explain in words what he/she discovered in the research. It should be clearly laid out and in a logical sequence. You will need to consider if the appropriate analysis has been conducted. Are the statistics correct? If you are not comfortable with statistics, please advise the editor when you submit your report. Interpretation of results should not be included in this section.

6. Conclusion: Are the claims in this section supported by the results, do they seem reasonable? Have the authors indicated how the results relate to expectations and to earlier research? Does the article support or contradict previous theories? Does the conclusion explain how the research has moved the body of scientific knowledge forward?

7. Language: If an article is poorly written due to grammatical errors, while it may make it more difficult to understand the science, you do not need to correct the English. You should bring this to the attention of the editor, however.

8. Figures and Tables

do the figures and tables inform the reader, are they an important part of the story? Do the figures describe the data accurately? Are they consistent, e.g. bars in charts are the same width, the scales on the axis are logical.

9. References

If the article builds upon previous research does it reference that work appropriately? Are there any important works that have been omitted? Are the references accurate?

Ethical Issues

1. Plagiarism: If you suspect that an article is a substantial copy of another work, please let the editor know, citing the previous work in as much detail as possible

2. Fraud: It is very difficult to detect the determined fraudster, but if you suspect the results in an article to be untrue, discuss it with the editor

Plagiarism is the reuse and copy of someone else's prior processes, results, or words without explicitly acknowledging the original author and source. Plagiarism in any form is unacceptable in SRMJ and is considered a serious breach of professional conduct, with potentially severe ethical and legal consequences. For this reason, Sustainable Resources Management Journal policy is to use different Plagiarism software to check your contribution to making sure the quality of our published articles. Published manuscripts that are found to contain plagiarized text are retracted from the journal website after careful investigation and approval by the Editor-in-Chief of the journal.