Article proposes a critique of a policy or practice with specific action proposals or suggestions.
Article follows conventions of academic research article e.g. position in literature, cited sources, and claimed contribution.
Article is based on developments that have not yet occurred.
Article is based on formal logic or mathematical technique.
Language quality: 1.5/2*
Standard of English expression in article is excellent.
Scope of debate: 0.5/2
Article addresses an issue which is widely known and debated.
Most related sources are mentioned in article [this is an invitation to careful selection rather than a demonstration of prowess in citation collection i.e. apt and representative choices made in source citations].
Logical flow: 1/2*
Ideas are well organised in article.
The argument presented in article is new.
Review impact: 0.5/2
The article has been significantly changed as a result of the review process.
Reviewers indicate their appreciation of the article in the form of a 50 word statement.
This thought-provoking article offers lessons on the future of shared machine shops by looking to the past. Gleaning insights from 18th and 19th century dressmaking, the author explains the value of humane, user-centric customization. It remains to be seen whether and, if so, how those working in shared machine shops might resist the temptation to pursue the opportunities that more scalable mass customization presents.
The article juxtaposes historical and contemporary production logics making an intriguing activist case for how mass customization might be otherwise. However, the concluding case for shared machine shops as sites for new production logic is highly speculative, neglecting to discuss texts on how the social as well as technological contexts of these spaces matter.