All full-length manuscripts that successfully pass the initial editorial screening undergo a rigorous single-blind peer-review process. Peer review is intended to provide an independent assessment of the scientific quality, methodological rigor, technical accuracy, relevance, and clarity of the submitted work and to support the handling editor in reaching a well-founded editorial decision.
Selection of Reviewers
The handling editor invites at least two independent reviewers with appropriate expertise in the subject area of the manuscript. Reviewers are selected based on their scientific and technical qualifications, relevant publication record, independence, and ability to provide a constructive and evidence-based assessment.
Reviewers should have no conflicts of interest that could compromise, or reasonably be perceived to compromise, the impartiality of their evaluation. Where necessary, additional reviewers may be invited to provide expertise on specific methodological, clinical, technical, statistical, ethical, or regulatory aspects of a manuscript.
Single-Blind Review
Transactions on AMMM operates a single-blind peer-review model. The identities of the authors are known to the reviewers, while the identities of the reviewers remain confidential and are not disclosed to the authors.
Reviewers are expected to treat the manuscript and all associated materials as confidential and must not use unpublished information obtained through the review process for personal or professional advantage.
Criteria for Review
Reviewers are asked to assess the manuscript with particular regard to:
- Scientific validity: whether the research question, study design, methodology, analysis, and conclusions are scientifically sound.
- Methodological and technical rigor: whether the methods are appropriate, sufficiently described, and applied correctly.
- Quality of data and evidence: whether the results adequately support the conclusions and uncertainties and limitations are appropriately addressed.
- Reproducibility and transparency: whether sufficient information is provided to understand and, where applicable, reproduce the work.
- Relevance and scholarly contribution: whether the manuscript provides a meaningful contribution to additive manufacturing in medicine and falls within the Aims & Scope of Trans. AMMM.
- Presentation and clarity: whether the manuscript is logically structured, clearly written, and presents figures, tables, and supporting information appropriately.
- Ethical and research integrity: whether applicable ethical, regulatory, authorship, data-reporting, and conflict-of-interest requirements have been adequately addressed.
Reviewers are encouraged to distinguish between issues that are essential for the scientific validity of the manuscript and recommendations that may improve its presentation or broader impact.
Reviewer Recommendations
Following their assessment, reviewers provide a written report and a recommendation to the handling editor. Recommendations generally fall into one of four categories: acceptance, minor revision, major revision, or rejection.
Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The handling editor retains responsibility for the editorial decision and considers the reviewer reports together with their own assessment of the manuscript and its compliance with the journal’s scientific, ethical, and editorial standards.
Where reviewer assessments differ substantially, the handling editor may evaluate the differing arguments independently, request clarification from the reviewers, or seek an additional expert opinion.
Revision
If a revision is invited, authors are expected to address the reviewers’ and editor’s comments carefully and transparently. A revised submission should include both the revised manuscript and a response explaining how each comment has been addressed or, where a suggested change has not been made, providing a reasoned scientific justification.
A request for revision does not constitute acceptance of the manuscript.
For minor revisions, the handling editor may assess the revised manuscript directly or return it to one or more reviewers where appropriate.
For major revisions, the revised manuscript will generally undergo further evaluation and may be returned to the original reviewers or, where necessary, assessed by additional experts.
Multiple rounds of revision and review may be conducted when required to resolve substantive scientific or methodological issues.
Editorial Decision
After completion of the peer-review and revision process, the handling editor evaluates whether the manuscript meets the scientific, methodological, ethical, and editorial standards of Trans. AMMM. The final decision may be acceptance, further revision, or rejection.
The decision is based on the scientific merits of the work and the substance of the reviewers’ assessments rather than on a numerical majority of reviewer recommendations. The handling editor therefore has final responsibility for the editorial decision.
Once a manuscript has been accepted, it proceeds to copyediting, production, proofreading, publication, and archiving.
Editorial Independence and Integrity
Editors and reviewers are expected to conduct the review process fairly, confidentially, and without discrimination or inappropriate influence. Where potential conflicts of interest, research-integrity concerns, ethical issues, or questions requiring specialized expertise arise, the Editors-in-Chief may appoint additional reviewers or advisors and initiate further editorial assessment before a final decision is reached.
Trans. AMMM regards peer review as a process of independent scientific evaluation and constructive scholarly dialogue, with the objective of ensuring the quality, reliability, transparency, and integrity of the scientific record.