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: 1/2*
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.
Logical flow: 2/2*
Ideas are well organised in article.
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.
The proposed article presents a relevant addition to the debate about what is Open Hardware. It reconsiders the open-o-meter approach for the evaluation of Open Hardware. The article proposes modifications to the open-o-meter, in order to better capture the complexity of what is Open Hardware.
This article explores the limits of categorising communities/platforms that claim some amount of support for open-source-hardware. In particular, it provides an interesting discussion and set of suggestions to improve the way in which we are able to identify and quantify their level of openness of these communities/platforms.