Editors’ comments

We have re-read your article and the reviews. Whilst the reviewers find significant merit in your overall purpose, they both agree that substantial work is needed to unleash the article’s full potential. In fact, you will find that though R1 is more sympathetic than R2, they offer quite similar opinions. The two main issues which R1 and R2 have identified are:

1-The article’s theoretical contribution is unclear, and not well articulated to the topic of transition. This could be resolved by focusing on how the bulk of the article is framed, e.g. reworking the introduction to more clearly spell out your intended contribution and how it relates to (a) other work on makers and COVID-19 and (b) transition, and then bearing these parameters in mind as you move forward. R1 advocates adopting the ‘traditional’ academic structure (introduction, literature review, research questions, methods, findings, discussion, conclusion). This might help provide a more structured approach. We of course leave it up to you how you wish to respond to the call to clarify your overall argument. Both reviewers have provided ample theoretical resources and references that could assist you.

2-The methodological approach is problematic. Both reviewers agree that describing who the panelists are and then providing a summary of the discussions does not represent a satisfactory analytical strategy. They also point out that using this source material as the basis of general statements about makers and COVID-19 is incorrect (in contrast to making statements about this panel and the pandemic). R2 recommends using content analysis software to code your data. This seems difficult to achieve as it is unclear what the raw data would be. We recommend using an discursive approach whereby you use your annotations as raw material from which you extract some discursive categories or themes, each featuring a number of representative keywords.

Normally we would give you a few months to revise your article (until the end of June, for example). However as the revisions are substantial, we advocate a different course of action: could you please send us in the next 3 or 4 weeks a draft response to the reviewers main points (in dot points – no need to expand) saying whether you agree or disagree, and how you intend to address these points. We will then confer with the reviewers and provide additional feedback if necessary.

We hope you will agree with this plan.

Thanks for letting us know.

Best wishes,

Mathieu and Panos

Reviewer: A

1) Is the subject matter relevant?

“Plan C – “makers’ response” to Covid-19” approaches the maker movement’s civic response to the COVID-19 crisis. Indeed, makers were central when hospitals suffered a shortage of medical material to treat and prevent the illness. Then, outlining an analysis of various countries across Europe in this topic is a very timely subject, and it is also essential to comprehend the makers’ movement during this crisis’ period.

2) Is the treatment of the subject matter intellectually interesting? Are there citations or bodies of literature you think are essential to which the author has not referred?

The article cleverly related the special issue topic (i.e., transition) with the makers’ phenomenon tackling Coronavirus. I find especially insightful the situation of COVID-19 from Geels’ (2002) conditions of socio-technical regimes. However, sometimes the theory is hard to follow, and I think the article could benefit from reorganizing the introduction and the theoretical framework. 

Concerning the introduction, the main argument of the article is unclear at this point. The author should include the concept of transition in it and write a final paragraph to mention the objective and the structure of the article. Also, I propose removing the three first paragraphs, as they give the impression that the investigation is centered in Italy. In doing so, the author could summarize some literature that has already analyzed the makers (or at least the technological) response to COVID-19 at the European level. I include here some examples: 

• Chattopadhyay, S., Wood, L., & Cox, L. (2020). Organizing amidst Covid-19. Interface, 12(1), 1–9.
• Criado, J. I., Guevara-Gómez, A., & Villodre, J. (2020). Using Collaborative Technologies and Social Media to Engage Citizens and Governments during the COVID-19 Crisis. The Case of Spain. Digital Government: Research and Practice, 1(4), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1145/3416089
• Richterich, A. (2020). When open source design is vital: critical making of DIY healthcare equipment during the COVID-19 pandemic. Health Sociology Review, 29(2), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1080/14461242.2020.1784772
• Wood, H., & Skeggs, B. (2020). Clap for carers? From care gratitude to care justice. European Journal of Cultural Studies, 23(4), 641–647. https://doi.org/10.1177/1367549420928362

In theoretical sections, storytelling is more necessary than adding new literature. Both parts are hard to follow. The author should be more apparent in explaining his/her ideas. In this version, he/she does not provide a clear discussion on making as a peer-production.

3) Are there any noticeable problems with the author’s means of validating assumptions or making judgments?

Although the author is right in reflecting on the historicity of makers movement in crisis times, I feel that the conclusion and discussion are a bit disconnected from the theory. Maybe the reason is that the author works with already recorded conversations of a YouTube video channel rather than doing her/her own fieldwork (I think this is a limitation that should be noted in the article). The author primarily should relate empirical data with transition theory and peer-production, as this second part seems to disappear in the conclusion part. If the author finds my suggestion valid, I would try to respond to Geels’ (2002) socio-technical regimes conditions. Just a last hint: the author could be better organize his/her ideas if he/she includes them in the classical sections of the “Discussion” and “Conclusion” of an academic article. 

4) Is the article well written?

In addition to the above (see question 2), the author could simplify several fragments that currently are a bit long, so they are more difficult to understand. Although I copy-paste some examples here, I think it could be positive if the author proofread the whole paper with the pursuit of reaching a wider audience: 

• In his treatise of “the structure of scientific revolutions”, Kuhn (1962) describes this structure as consisting of four steps – first, the dominant paradigm active in normal science, second, anomalies in normal science leading to extrapolatory activity or “extraordinary research”, third, the adoption of a new paradigm that gradually replaces the old one (as its incumbent adepts eventually die), and fourth, in the aftermath of the scientific revolution the new paradigm becoming the new normal.
• With the 3D printers from the lab relocated to students homes, they initially were producing the “Prusa shield” but then developed their own design of which they eventually produced one batch together with local companies and material supplied by the German Red Cross. 
• — Thomas Landrain, founder and CEO Just One Giant Lab (JOGL), a platform that supported working together in open science projects, who set up a specialist Covid-19 section on that platform in five fields of activity – data analysis and simulation, validation of open source solutions, Covid-19 prevention, Covid-19 diagnostic and detection, and Covid-19 treatment – which as a collective endeavour realized same level of output as one would get from an academic laboratory.

5) Are there portions of the article that you recommend be shortened, excised or expanded?

The author could drastically shorten the “Results,” as now this data is essentially a description of the watched videos. For this reason, I could recommend rewriting this part by thinking about the article’s objective and highlighting the empirical data that is relevant to understand it. Again, an academic paper’s classical structure might help recognize the primary author’s discussion in his/her work. 

Reviewer: C

1) Is the subject matter relevant?

This is a review of what one show says about makers – it has nothing to do with how making relates to degrowth and it is completely separated from a global perspective on makers. The bulk of the paper is devoted to rehashing the material available by watching the videos, instead of engaging with the lessons learned. A great deal of the information presented in overviews of the episodes could instead be used to make interesting arguments about makers, instead of just presented like an annotated bibliography. If the author ended with a strong statement about what this means about makers, transition, and health systems it might be worth publication. But the author instead ends as “ambiguous”. And to say that makers’ response was “reactive” and not “proactive” is indicative of how little the paper engages with the global response. Makers across Canada repurposed entire factories and fablabs in anticipation of new news, they moved into larger facilities, and they started producing things that might be needed for the future. The conclusions need to be reeled in and narrowed. If the author wants to make these lackluster and insignificant comments about makers based on 6 hours of show, they also need to rewrite the beginning of the paper to say that this is an overview of makers from a very small perspective and that it does not include any of the additional information or analysis available within transition theory and panarchy. Additionally, a better approach, instead of just listing what happened in the show, would be to perform content analysis and apply it to the common threads and features, using the coded analysis to back up the statements.

2) Is the treatment of the subject matter intellectually interesting? Are there citations or bodies of literature you think are essential to which the author has not referred?

While there is some referencing to maker literature, it does not engage with some of what has most recently been written about makers and COVID-19 response. The author also does not sufficiently engage with transition literature in socio-ecological systems. If this is meant to relate to degrowth, there is also a significant gap in that there is no literature related to degrowth. This is meant to be a part of the transitions special issue, but the section on transitions is not sufficient. The argument on transition is a cross cutting theme in socio ecological literature – if enough institutions, governments, communities, etc. shift their behavior to embody a post-growth world’s ideals, the collective will eventually strengthen to present a realistic alternative to the dominant system. Joutsenvirta argues that this approach helps to “generate patterns of social relations through practices that are reproduced by actors across time and space” (2016, p. 24). First more engagement with panarchy is needed, what is there does not do the heuristic justice. Other relevant publications may include (Allen, Angeler, Garmestani, Gunderson, & Holling, 2014; Avelino, 2017; Holloway, 2010; Quilley, 2017; Schmid & Smith, 2020; Westley, Zimmerman, & Patton, 2007; Wiedmann, Lenzen, Keyßer, & Steinberger, 2020).

And on makers https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007%2F978-3-030-61993-0

(Armani, Hurt, Hwang, McCarthy, & Scholtz, 2020; Billio & Varotto, 2020; Corsini, Dammicco, Bowker-Lonnecker, & Blythe, 2020; Mahr & Dickel, 2020; Ravi, Antoline, Chepelev, et al., 2021; Ravi, Antoline, Moore, & Rybicki, 2021; Tino et al., 2020)

3) Are there any noticeable problems with the author’s means of validating assumptions or making judgments?

The biggest flaw of the paper is that the author relies on a television program created and distributed by those within the Maker movement. That means, there is going to be bias in programming information, particularly toward the scale and importance of impact. Makers absolutely played a strong role in the pandemic, but this is not a rigorous way to demonstrate that. The opening of the paper significantly oversells the contribution makers had to the pandemic, but there is absolutely no reason this needs to be done. Makers responded to the pandemic by demonstrating extreme adaptability and characteristics of resilience that could, and should, be adopted more widely – including distributed nodes of production, open access knowledge, and more. This paper barely scratches the surface of what was so important about makers in their response to COVID. If this special issue is about peer production and degrowth, this paper doesn’t hit the mark at all, and it’s really unfortunate because Makers are a key piece of a degrowth transition.

The paper is founded within a two-line critique against broader, more rigorous, and much better collections of data for the way maker’s responded to the pandemic, the author suggests that using six hours of a very specific show, focused on very specific geographical locations. If this paper is to be published, the claims need to be significantly reigned in. This is not a review of the role of makers in the pandemic, this is a review of 6 hours of television that do contribute very little to a very big discussion.

4) Is the article well written?

There are many grammatical errors throughout the paper and the tone is very informal. I am not necessarily overly keen on complicated writing, but this seems like it was written for a blog post. And to be honest, the content is more appropriate for an online review of the television show, rather than as a peer-reviewed journal article.

5) Are there portions of the article that you recommend be shortened, excised or expanded?

I recommend the entire section explaining the details of each show be removed and moved into a content analysis software or something similar. Then code or deal with that as the data, rather than presenting the raw data as something worth reading. Then, pull out the main themes and add them to the different categories of conversation that are towards the end of the paper. Each of the analysis/observation sections should be triple the length and look at what the literature says and what is happening worldwide – UNLESS this paper is rewritten to clearly state that this is not a commentary on makers in general, but rather a review of 5 episodes of a television show – although, that may not be a very interesting paper, it would certainly be more rigorous in what the author suggests they’re doing. As it stands now, this is a very disappointing commentary on makers during the pandemic.

Other general comments:

In the opening paragraph – where was the pandemic declared on March 11? Globally? Also, did the declaration lead to increased hospitalizations?

“This story made the headlines in the European and global press, early into the declared pandemic, and the fablabs and 3D printing were inextricably linked to fixing supply chain tribulations for healthcare.”

• Is there indication of this outside of the maker literature? Was the impact noticeable by those within certain disciplines or did they actually have a marked and measurable effect?

“That’s how the virus first infected the “maker movement”.”

• Is it? In Canada the virus first “infected” the maker movement when the makerspaces started producing face shields, almost immediately. They also, almost immediately, released guides/information for producing a homemade mask.

“makers globally continued to develop these devices that presumably were short in supply.”

• There is data, so no need to presume

“of makers defeated global supply chains by producing locally supplies – particularly personal protective equipment – for the medical professions”

• Suggesting they “defeated” supply chains is overselling it. If they had defeated it, there would not be respiratory shortages?

The third paragraph on page 2 seems like a strange, and poorly written flex. What is the point of listing these things here? How does this section contribute to the narrative? And what is the narrative?

“In his treatise of “the structure of scientific revolutions”, Kuhn (1962) describes this structure as consisting of four steps – first, the dominant paradigm active in normal science, second, anomalies in normal science leading to extrapolatory activity or “extraordinary research”, third, the adoption of a new paradigm that gradually replaces the old one (as its incumbent adepts eventually die), and fourth, in the aftermath of the scientific revolution the new paradigm becoming the new normal.[1]”

• In degrowth literatures there is significant argument against this way of thinking – see post-normal science

“Transitions as processes of ‘degradation’ and ‘breakdown’ versus processes of ‘build up’ and ‘innovation’ (Gunderson and Holling, 2002) have been witnessed in history”

• This is an oversimplification and mischaracterization of Gunderson and Holling’s theory on transition (panarchy)

“First, the response to the pandemic in the United States appeared to be quite different to the response in many European countries.”

• It was also the exact same in many European countries… the US is just much larger.

[1] It seems no coincidence that in the context of the pandemic politicians talk about a “new normal” that would replace how people used to live with their state-controlled, virus-compatible version.