Activist: 1.5/2
Article proposes a critique of a policy or practice with specific action proposals or suggestions.
Academic: 2/2*
Article follows conventions of academic research article e.g. position in literature, cited sources, and claimed contribution.
Prospective: 0/2
Article is based on developments that have not yet occurred.
Formalised: 0/2
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.
Comprehensiveness: 2/2*
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: 1.5/2*
Ideas are well organised in article.
Originality: 2/2*
The argument presented in article is new.
Review impact: 1/2
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.
Reviewer A
The insightful paper draws on “gambiarra” practices in Brazil and claims that makerspaces should embrace social inclusion at a greater extent in order to empower makers in building alternative socio-technical scripts. Two promising research agendas are outlined: The analysis of linkages between non-institutionalized making and institutionalized practices at makerspaces and the use of Akrich’s theory on the “de-scription” of technology to think about making.
Reviewer B
This article discuss the potentials and challenges of maker spaces in São Paulo City (Brazil) to address social inclusion and sustainability policies. It provides a good comprehensive analysis of the literature debate. Through the empirical analysis of a specific maker space, the authors are able to highlight relevant problems and challenges towards more inclusive and sustainable maker spaces strategic policies.
