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: 2.2*
Standard of English expression in article is excellent.
Scope of debate: 2/2
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].
Ideas are well organised in article.
The argument presented in article is new.
Review impact: 2/2
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 is a well-written article that successfully contextualises and analyses collections makerspaces in the UK. By situating collections makerspaces as ‘fourth wave’, the article sketches an evolutionary view that also offers sight lines for future developments within such spaces. Furthermore, the theoretical framework and methodological approaches help deliver a good analysis of the power dynamics surrounding institutional makerspaces and the politics of remix practices.
This paper provides both a broad view of the multivarious histories of makerspaces and a narrowed anthropology of their adoption in museums, with a focus on the context of London’s major art institutions. An anthropological-focused work, its significance resides in raising points of entry into further research.