All manuscripts submitted to Journal Development of Resource Science undergo a rigorous peer review process to ensure scientific quality, validity, and relevance. The journal applies a double-blind peer review system, in which the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed. Manuscripts are evaluated by experts in relevant disciplines based on scientific merit, originality, and alignment with the journal’s scope.

Initial Evaluation

Upon submission, the editorial board conducts an initial screening to assess the manuscript’s compliance with the journal’s scope, focus, and publication requirements. Manuscripts that fail to meet these criteria may be rejected without external review. At this stage, similarity screening is performed, and manuscripts with a similarity index exceeding 30% will be rejected. The editorial board also evaluates formatting, citation style, and adherence to the author guidelines. Manuscripts requiring technical corrections will be returned to the authors for revision and resubmission. Only manuscripts that pass this stage proceed to peer review.

Assignment of Reviewers

The editorial board appoints two independent reviewers with appropriate expertise relevant to the manuscript’s subject area. Reviewers are selected from institutions different from that of the corresponding author to ensure objectivity. Authors must remove all identifying information, including author names, acknowledgments, and self-references, from the main manuscript and provide them separately in the title page file. Reviewers are invited by the assigned editor and are expected to accept the invitation based on their expertise, availability, and absence of conflicts of interest. Reviewer assignment is generally completed within two weeks.

Review Process

Reviewers assess manuscripts based on scientific quality, originality, methodological rigor, validity, and relevance to the field. Reviewers are typically given two weeks to complete their evaluation. Constructive and objective feedback is provided to assist authors in improving the manuscript. Reviewers may recommend acceptance, revision (minor or major), or rejection.

Editorial Decision

The Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision based on reviewers’ recommendations and the manuscript’s compliance with publication standards. In cases of substantially divergent reviewer opinions, additional reviewers may be invited. Editorial decisions (acceptance, rejection, or request for minor or major revisions) are communicated to the authors through the online submission system, together with anonymized reviewer comments. All communications remain confidential in accordance with the double-blind peer review policy.
The average time from submission to first decision is approximately one month, and the time from acceptance to publication is typically 2–4 weeks.

Revision Process

When revisions are requested, authors must submit a revised manuscript with changes clearly indicated, accompanied by a detailed response to reviewers’ comments. Authors are normally given two weeks for minor revisions and four weeks for major revisions. Manuscripts requiring major revisions are usually re-evaluated by the original reviewers, whereas minor revisions may be assessed by the editorial board without additional external review.

Publication

After final acceptance, manuscripts undergo copyediting and formatting to ensure clarity, consistency, and compliance with journal standards. This process ensures that all articles published in Journal Development of Resource Science meet the highest standards of scientific integrity and ethical conduct.

---

Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement (Peer Review)

Journal Development of Resource Science upholds the highest standards of publication ethics and is committed to preventing publication malpractice throughout the peer review process. The journal adheres to the following principles:

Confidentiality

All manuscripts and related materials are treated as confidential. Editors, reviewers, and editorial staff must not disclose any information regarding a manuscript or its review process to unauthorized parties.

Objectivity and Impartiality

Peer review is conducted objectively and without bias. Editors and reviewers evaluate manuscripts solely on scientific merit, relevance, and quality, and must avoid personal, institutional, or financial conflicts of interest. Constructive feedback should be provided to support manuscript improvement.

Timeliness

The journal is committed to an efficient and timely peer review process. Editors and reviewers are expected to complete their evaluations within reasonable timeframes, and authors are promptly informed of the progress of their submissions.

Transparency and Accountability

Reviewers are encouraged to provide clear, reasoned, and constructive evaluations. Editorial decisions are based on reviewers’ reports and editorial judgment, ensuring fairness and accountability.

Conflicts of Interest

Editors and reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts of interest that could compromise their objectivity. Appropriate measures are taken to manage conflicts and ensure unbiased evaluation.

Plagiarism and Research Misconduct

Editors and reviewers are responsible for identifying potential cases of plagiarism, data fabrication, falsification, or other forms of research misconduct. Any suspected ethical violations must be reported and addressed in accordance with established publication ethics standards.

Recognition of Reviewers

Journal Development of Resource Science a acknowledges the essential contribution of peer reviewers in maintaining scholarly quality and integrity and provides appropriate recognition for their valuable service.