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: 1.5/2
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: 0.5/2*
Ideas are well organised in article.
The argument presented in article is new.
Review impact: 1.5/2
Reviewers indicate their appreciation of the article in the form of a 50 word statement.
While shared machine shops are often characterized by a more liberated way of production, the article points to the impact of national-economic discourses about the ‘industry of the future’ on their institutionalization. Therefore, the article makes a valuable contribution to the broader question of the relationship between established industries and shared machine shops.
A much-needed reflective analysis of a critique and recuperation cycle within UK shared machine shops based on empirical evidence including survey data. Due to the hegemonic techno-mythology of digital manufacturing and its institutional support frameworks, the range of practices and diversity of practitioners narrows. The authors consider what that means for the potential of such spaces for resisting the logic of information capitalism, harbouring critical capacities and nurturing technological sovereignty.