Next Article in Journal
Multiscale Modeling of Epoxy-Based Nanocomposites Reinforced with Functionalized and Non-Functionalized Graphene Nanoplatelets
Next Article in Special Issue
On the Mechanical Response of Silicon Dioxide Nanofiller Concentration on Fused Filament Fabrication 3D Printed Isotactic Polypropylene Nanocomposites
Previous Article in Journal
Mucoadhesive and Rheological Studies on the Co-Hydrogel Systems of Poly(Ethylene Glycol) Copolymers with Fluoroalkyl and Poly(Acrylic Acid)
Previous Article in Special Issue
Fused Filament Fabrication Based on Polyhydroxy Ether (Phenoxy) Polymers and Related Properties
 
 
Review
Peer-Review Record

Scientometric Analysis and Systematic Review of Multi-Material Additive Manufacturing of Polymers

Polymers 2021, 13(12), 1957; https://doi.org/10.3390/polym13121957
by Yufan Zheng †, Wenkang Zhang †, David Moises Baca Lopez and Rafiq Ahmad *
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Polymers 2021, 13(12), 1957; https://doi.org/10.3390/polym13121957
Submission received: 16 April 2021 / Revised: 24 May 2021 / Accepted: 5 June 2021 / Published: 12 June 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Polymers in Additive Manufacturing)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The following proposed edits are optional:

The Abstract and Conclusions could be improved by the inclusion of the scientific/technological findings of the conducted review.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper Scientometric analysis and Systematic review of multi-material
additive manufacturing of polymers is based on Multi-material additive-manufacturing of polymers. The main steps proposed contribute to providing knowledge for practitioners and researchers to understand the state of the art on these materials. 2512 papers were analyzed using the “scientific mapping” approach and a systematic review from scopus database on the latest advances in multi-material AM of polymers.

This issue is not a novelty in this area since it is a state-of-the-art paper. Although, I agree with the authors that it can provide knowledge collection to practitioners and researchers.

The paper would benefit from a better and more detailed discussion, highlighting the novelty of the work and defining research alternatives paths to the identified needs.And how to explore the potentials found, how to develop and improve post-processing methods. I recommend reconsideration of the paper following major revision.

Abstract

Trendare-please correct it

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Answers to the comments and suggestions were performed. We suggest accepting in the present form.

Back to TopTop