3D Printing and Applications
Guidance for reviewers evaluating cutting edge additive manufacturing research
Reviewer Guidelines
Reviewers help ensure that J3DPA publishes reliable, reproducible, and impactful research. These guidelines outline expectations for fair, constructive, and timely peer review.
Key Review Criteria
Rigor
Assess whether methods and results are technically sound and reproducible.
Novelty
Evaluate the originality of the contribution and its advancement of additive manufacturing practice.
Clarity
Check whether the manuscript is clearly written, with adequate figures, tables, and explanations.
Impact
Consider the relevance to real world applications, standards, or future research directions.
Ethics and Confidentiality
Confidentiality: Treat all submissions as confidential. Do not share or use unpublished information for personal gain.
Conflicts of interest: Decline reviews if you have a conflict with the authors or topic.
Constructive tone: Provide respectful, evidence based feedback that helps authors improve their work.
Review Process
Reviews should focus on the technical quality of materials, processing parameters, and validation methods. Identify weaknesses in experimental design, missing data, or unclear reporting. Provide specific suggestions to strengthen the manuscript.
If you cannot complete a review within the requested timeframe, notify the editorial office promptly so the manuscript can be reassigned. Timely reviews help authors and maintain the journal schedule.
Reviewer Checklist
Methods
- Are process parameters complete?
- Is the equipment clearly described?
- Are materials characterized well?
- Is the experimental design sound?
- Are controls appropriate?
Results
- Do results support conclusions?
- Are statistics reported clearly?
- Are figures readable and labeled?
- Is data availability stated?
- Are limitations acknowledged?
Impact
- Is the contribution novel?
- Does it advance applications?
- Is the writing clear and concise?
- Are references appropriate?
- Is the scope aligned?
Best Practices
Provide clear, numbered feedback and distinguish major concerns from minor edits. Highlight areas where additional data or clarification is needed. Avoid personal comments and focus on technical merit and reproducibility.
Timelines and Communication
Reviewers are encouraged to complete reports within the requested timeframe. If you need additional time or must decline, inform the editorial office promptly so the manuscript can be reassigned. Clear and timely communication keeps authors informed and supports an efficient editorial process. This helps maintain rapid decisions and consistent quality standards overall for authors and editors globally.
Become a Reviewer
Support the additive manufacturing community by providing expert peer review.
