additive-manufacturing

name	additive-manufacturing
description	Use when targeting the journal Additive Manufacturing or deciding whether an AM-science manuscript fits this venue. Encodes the journal's fit, the process–structure–property and qualification bar, AM-specific experimental rigor, the AM-vs-metallurgy and AM-vs-subtractive routing, official-submission re-check, and desk-reject heuristics.

Additive Manufacturing (additive-manufacturing)

Journal positioning

Additive Manufacturing is a leading archival journal dedicated to the science of additive manufacturing: new AM processes and process physics, process–structure–property relationships, AM-specific materials, design-for-AM, and in-situ monitoring and qualification. Its center of gravity is AM as a science — understanding how the layer-wise process governs structure and performance, and how to monitor and qualify what is built — established with experimental rigor. The journal differs from a metallurgy-first venue (where the microstructure mechanism is the point) and from a precision-machining venue (subtractive/precision). Papers that print a known part on a commercial machine with no AM-specific insight, or that report a property with no link to the process, are a weak fit. This skill is a fit / venue-selection / re-framing tool. It does not replace the journal's current official author guidelines. Before submitting, re-check the live Additive Manufacturing Guide for Authors.

When to trigger

• The author names Additive Manufacturing for an AM-process, AM-materials, or AM-qualification manuscript and wants a fit/framing check.
• A paper must be re-framed from "we 3D-printed this part" into an AM process–structure–property or qualification contribution.
• The author is deciding between Additive Manufacturing, a metallurgy-first venue (acta-materialia), and a precision-machining venue (international-journal-of-machine-tools-and-manufacture).
• The author needs AM's experimental-rigor bar and desk-reject heuristics.

Scope & topic fit

• New AM processes and process physics: powder-bed fusion, directed energy deposition, binder jetting, vat photopolymerization, material extrusion — with new process understanding or capability.
• Process–structure–property relationships: how AM parameters govern porosity, microstructure, anisotropy, residual stress, and mechanical/functional performance.
• AM materials: alloys, polymers, ceramics, composites, and multi-material/functionally graded structures designed or adapted for AM.
• Design-for-AM: lattices, topology-optimized and architected structures realized by AM, when the AM realizability and performance are central.
• In-situ monitoring, sensing, and process control: melt-pool/defect monitoring, closed-loop control, and data-driven process insight.
• Qualification, repeatability, and defect science: linking process signatures to defect formation and to part qualification.

Method & evidence bar

• The central claim is an AM-specific advance — a process capability, a process–structure–property link, or a monitoring/qualification method — not a part printed on a stock machine.
• Process parameters must be reported completely (machine, feedstock, energy input, scan strategy, atmosphere) so the build is reproducible.
• Structure and property characterization must be quantitative and statistically representative (porosity sampling, microstructure quantification, mechanical statistics), not single images.
• For monitoring/control, demonstrate the signal-to-defect or signal-to-property link with validation, not just sensor traces.
• Benchmark against the correct baseline (conventionally made counterpart or state-of-the-art AM) and explain the AM mechanism behind any improvement.
• Reproducibility: feedstock characteristics, process window, post-processing, and testing protocol reported in enough detail to reproduce the structure and property.

Structure & house style

• Standard full-length research-article structure; Additive Manufacturing publishes archival articles — re-check article types on the live guide.
• The introduction motivates the AM-science gap (process physics, structure control, qualification), not a generic application; the discussion makes the process–structure–property argument explicit.
• Figures are load-bearing: process schematics, porosity/microstructure quantification, in-situ signals with ground truth, and property plots with statistics.
• Notation and units follow AM/materials-engineering conventions; report energy density and scan parameters unambiguously.
• Supplementary material carries extended builds, full parameter sets, and monitoring data; the main-text figures must support the central AM insight on their own.

Official-submission checklist

• Before giving submission-ready advice, read ../../resources/source-basis.md and ../../resources/official-source-map.md; start from the Elsevier anchors, then cite the current Additive Manufacturing Guide for Authors page you checked.
• Search the live site for "Additive Manufacturing journal guide for authors" and follow the current Elsevier/Editorial Manager version.
• Re-check article types, length/figure expectations, and the data-availability policy for process, monitoring, and characterization data.
• Confirm highlights, graphical-abstract, and any structured-abstract requirement.
• Re-check competing-interests, funding, author-contribution (CRediT), and AI-use disclosure requirements.
• If the live official instructions conflict with this skill, the official instructions win.

Pre-submission self-check

• The contribution is an AM-specific advance (process / process–structure–property / monitoring–qualification), not a printed part.
• Process parameters (machine, feedstock, energy input, scan strategy) are reported completely and reproducibly.
• Structure and property data are quantitative and statistically representative, not single images.
• Monitoring/control claims demonstrate a validated signal-to-defect or signal-to-property link.
• Improvements are benchmarked against the correct baseline and explained via the AM mechanism.
• The article type and length fit Additive Manufacturing's archival format.

Common desk-reject triggers

• Printing a known part on a commercial machine with no AM-specific process or material insight.
• Property reported with no link to AM process parameters or structure.
• Characterization by representative images only, with no quantification or sampling.
• Monitoring data shown as sensor traces with no validated link to defects or properties.
• Scope mismatch: a metallurgy-first microstructure paper, a subtractive/precision-machining paper, or a pure design-optimization paper with AM as a label.
• Better framed as a physical-metallurgy mechanism study or a precision-manufacturing process study.

Re-routing decision

• Microstructure mechanism is the point, AM merely the route → acta-materialia.
• Subtractive/precision manufacturing or post-machining of AM parts → international-journal-of-machine-tools-and-manufacture.
• AM of composite/architected composites with composites as the focus → composites-part-b-engineering.
• Constitutive/plasticity modeling of AM material as the core → international-journal-of-plasticity.
• Highest-impact conceptual materials advance for a broad audience → nature-materials.

Output format

[Fit] High / Medium / Low (one-line reason)
[Target] Additive Manufacturing
[Topic tags] <2–3 closest AM subtopics>
[AM advance] <the process / structure–property / monitoring contribution in one line>
[Method/evidence] <does the AM characterization + reproducibility clear the journal's bar?>
[Top risk] <the single most likely reason for rejection>
[Official items to re-check] <article type / length / data policy / abstract / disclosures>
[Re-route suggestion] <if not a fit, a better-matched venue>