3D Printing and Applications
Resources to support high quality and efficient peer review
Reviewer Resources
J3DPA provides reviewers with guidance and tools to deliver fair, constructive, and timely evaluations of additive manufacturing research.
Core Reviewer Tools
Review Checklist
Structured checklist for assessing methodology, data quality, and clarity of reporting.
Ethics Guidance
Policies on confidentiality, conflicts of interest, and responsible conduct of review.
Feedback Templates
Suggested formats for organizing major issues, minor edits, and overall recommendations.
Reporting Standards
Guidance on expected reporting for materials, process parameters, and validation tests.
Review Workflow
Assess Methods
- Confirm parameter reporting
- Evaluate materials disclosure
- Check test conditions
- Review data availability
- Flag missing controls
Review Results
- Validate conclusions
- Assess figures and tables
- Check statistical reporting
- Confirm clarity of discussion
- Note limitations
Provide Feedback
- Organize major and minor points
- Suggest specific improvements
- Keep tone professional
- Support fair decisions
- Submit within deadline
Using Resources Effectively
These resources are designed to reduce review time and improve consistency across reviewers. Use the checklist and templates to structure your report and ensure that key technical elements are evaluated. If you are uncertain about a requirement, contact the editorial office for clarification. This improves consistency and reduces revision cycles. It also helps new reviewers build confidence and speeds decisions for authors overall and outcomes.
Best Practices
Be specific: Point to exact sections, figures, or data points when recommending changes.
Be balanced: Highlight strengths as well as weaknesses to help authors improve effectively.
Be timely: Submit reviews within the requested timeframe to keep the editorial process moving.
Be objective: Base recommendations on evidence and relevance. If a request is beyond the study scope, note it as a limitation rather than a requirement.
Support from the Editorial Office
If you have questions about scope, ethics, or review expectations, the editorial office can assist. We also provide clarification on deadlines or conflicts of interest when needed.
Reviewers may request additional guidance on how to assess novel methods, datasets, or emerging technologies in additive manufacturing.
For complex submissions, the office can provide context on journal priorities or connect you with additional guidance materials. This support helps ensure that evaluations remain consistent across specialized topics.
Need Reviewer Support?
Contact the editorial office for assistance or updated reviewer resources anytime.
