Editorial review process for manuscripts submitted to "Additive Fabrication Technology".

All articles submitted to the editors are subject to independent peer review.

1. The manuscript of a scientific article received by the editors of the journal is considered by the executive secretary for compliance with the profile of the journal. This includes the main provisions of the publication requirements, formatting, approved by the journal editorial board.

The executive secretary informs the authors about the receipt of the article and its further review by means of automatic notification by e-mail. This is done after making the appropriate changes to the author's profile on the journal's website. If the formal requirements for materials for publication are not met, then the article for publication is not accepted “on formal grounds” and the author is informed about this by automatic notification.

2. The executive secretary sends the article for review to one or, if necessary, two reviewers. To review manuscripts, both members of the editorial board of the journal and highly qualified scientists and specialists from other organizations with deep professional knowledge and experience in a particular scientific area can be involved as reviewers.

3. The terms of review in each individual case are determined by the creation of conditions for prompt publication.

4. Reviewing blindly means that the author is not informed about the reviewer data (reviewers) and vice versa. The author receives a review without a signature and indication of the name, position, and place of work of the reviewer.

5. If the review contains recommendations for correcting and finalizing the article, the journal executive secretary sends the review text to the author. He proposes to take them into account when preparing a revised version of the article or refute them with reason (partially or completely).

6. An article sent to the author for revision must be returned corrected within a month. A letter from the authors must be attached to the updated manuscript, containing answers to all comments and explaining all the changes made in the article (highlight the changes in a separate file and in the text of the article). The article modified (revised) by the author is re-sent for review and a response to the reviewer is attached (an answer to the review is “Thank you dear reviewer for carefully reading our work, .... we tried to take into account all the comments ..., but at the same time ... .. "). The date of receipt by the editorial office is the date of return of the revised article.

7. The editors reserve the right to reject articles if the author is unable or unwilling to consider the editors' wishes.

8. An article not recommended by the reviewer for publication is not accepted for reconsideration.

9. If there are negative reviews on the manuscript or on its revised version, the article is rejected with obligatory notification of the author about the reasons for such a decision.

10. Not allowed for publication in a scientific journal:

– articles containing previously published material;

– articles designed without article formatting rules;

– articles, whose authors refuse technical revision;

– articles whose authors do not fulfill the reviewer's constructive remarks or do not reasonably refute them;

– a series of articles representing separate stages of unfinished research.

11. After the decision of the editorial board of the journal on the admission of the article for publication, the executive secretary of the journal informs the author about this by means of automatic notification and indicates the possible terms of publication.

12. The order of publication of articles is determined by the registration date of their receipt by the editorial office. Works devoted to particularly topical science problems, as well as containing fundamentally original information, may be, by decision of the editorial board, published out of turn.

The editors do not discuss articles with the authors, correspond with the methodology for writing and formatting scientific articles, and do not bring articles to the required scientific and methodological level.

The maximum review period between the date of receipt of the manuscript by the editorial board and the editorial board decision is 2 months.

Rules for reviews

The review should objectively evaluate the scientific article and analyze its theoretical and methodological advantages and disadvantages. Reviews should be up to 3.5 thousand characters (with spaces), up to 1.5 pages. The text should be typed in a Word text editor, font size – 12 pt, line spacing – one and a half, margins (all) – 1.5 cm, paragraph indentation - 0.5 cm. Below are the general requirements for scientific article reviews.

The reviewer must:

Determine the compliance of the article material with the journal profile.

Assess the relevance of the article's content: whether the level of the material presented corresponds to modern science and technology achievements.

Assess the significance of findings (scientific, practical).

Indicate whether the requirements for formatting the article have been considered: compliance with the article volume, the presence of annotations in Russian and English, references included in the text, etc.

Evaluate the article from a methodological point of view and determine whether it meets the requirements of teaching in this discipline.

Give a qualitative and/or quantitative assessment of the factual and illustrative material presented in the article.

Evaluate the completeness and reliability of the information provided.

Evaluate the correctness and accuracy of the definitions and formulations used (or introduced).

Evaluate the literary style of presentation of the material.

Give reasonable conclusions about the article as a whole, comments, and, if necessary, recommendations for its improvement.

The above questions are general. It is important to note that each article requires an individual approach to criteria selection.

In the final part of the review, based on the results of the article analysis, a clear recommendation should be given for its publication in the presented form. This recommendation should be given on the need for its revision or revision (with constructive comments), or on the inappropriateness of its publication in this journal.