--- 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 ```text [Fit] High / Medium / Low (one-line reason) [Target] Additive Manufacturing [Topic tags] <2–3 closest AM subtopics> [AM advance] [Method/evidence] [Top risk] [Official items to re-check]
[Re-route suggestion] ```