Article proposes a critique of a policy or practice with specific action proposals or suggestions: 0/3
Article follows conventions of academic research article — e.g. position in literature, cited sources, and claimed contribution: 3/3
Article is based on developments that have not yet occurred: 0/3
Article is based on formal logic or mathematical technique: 0/3
Standard of English expression in article is excellent: 3/3
Scope of debate
Article addresses an issue which is widely known and debated: 2/3
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]: 3/3
Ideas are well organised in article: 3/3
The argument presented in article is new: 1.5/3
The article has been significantly changed as a result of the review process: 2/3
Reviewers indicate their appreciation of the article in the form of a 50 word statement.
Reviewer A: The article provides in depth, ethnographic insights into what constitutes the identities, roles and practices of members in a hackerspace by focusing on their use of tools and their attitude.
Reviewer B: The article is suitable for publishing if minor errors are corrected (e.g. p. 18, Nolan is called ‘Nathan’). The theme focus of tools and maker identity is appropriate and the primary concepts derived from the data are interesting and telling, especially the adhocism concept.
Reviewer C: The focus in this revision on a maker identity, tools and “futzing” has been sharpened. The concepts it suggests will be generative of future studies. I’m greatly excited by this article’s publishing, as it will be a helpful resource.