Reviewer: Matthijs den Besten

1. Is the subject matter relevant?

Yes. It helps answer the question whether maker spaces are relevant and legitimate vehicles for invention.

2. Is the treatment of the subject matter intellectually interesting?

Where is the meat? Apart from the introduction of the notion of real-life laboratory to FabLab research and the description of a prosthesis project in its infancy, the article seems to provide hardly any new elements. As a result the article reads more like a research proposal than a description of actual research.

Are there citations or bodies of literature you think are essential to which the author has not referred?

Collective invention (Allen, Nuvolari), User Innovation (Von Hippel, Franke), Open Innovation (Chesbrough).

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

The article appears to present it as a given that maker-spaces and FabLabs can be equated with real-life laboratories, while this should be the topic of analysis. As is noted in the literature review, real-life laboratories typically refer social interactions at a different level (cities, clusters), so it seems difficult to argue that maker-spaces and FabLabs refer to the same phenomenon as real-life laboratories. One could argue, however, that they can act as a substitute. This could be useful in the event that opportunities for real life experimentation are rare (e.g. in the absence of war). In this case the question is whether these spaces are sufficiently exposed to real life and to what extent they constitute a better substitute than traditional laboratories. Alternatively, one could argue that maker-spaces and FabLabs complement real-life laboratories. In that case, it is important to highlight their added value in the ecosystem (relative to traditional laboratories, incubators, and what have you).

4. Is the article well written?

OK

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

Section 2 can be cut down, section 3 (especially section 3.1) should be expanded.

Reviewer: Dr. Paz Sastre

1. Is the subject matter relevant?

Yes, it is.

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?

Yes, the subject is really interesting.

About the citations and the theoretical literature there are some related concepts that could be very usefull. For example, the author writes “laboratories in the wild” but the Michel Callon’s concept “research in the wild” is never mentioned. I recomend think about the relation of the shared machine shops with the citizen science practices too.

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

The argument’s structure is clear but it would be helpful to the reader improve the explanation of the main concepts: “innovation society”, “real-life experiments” and “real-life laboratories”.

The first concept appears in the introduction but instead of being properly indicated the title speak about “networked innovation”. I understand that the real “scene” is the “innovation society” –related to the Castell’s “networked society”- in which the networked innovation take place. If the main concept here is “networked innovation” it will be better if the author use this concept later instead of “innovation society”.

The cases studies are not related to other projects that could work in similar conditions and would suit the theoretical model.

There is no great difference between the discussion and the conclusion. Maybe it would be helpful rethink both parts.

In both parts there are statements that doesn’t suit very well. For example:
“By applying the concept of real-life laboratories to the analysis of shared machine shops and the developments that emerge in this context, this article considers the subject of this special issue as a promising example that embodies significant properties of a reflexive innovation society”

This is one of the final sentences of the conclusion but if you read it here you see how the sentence style and content correspond to an introduction.

4. Is the article well written?

The text is pretty clear but sometimes the distinction between paragraphs is not well defined because some paragraphs are separated but speak about the same topic. In general I recomend to review the extension of all the paragraphs to avoid this problem.

There is also a small problem with the references. In general, all citations in the text should be carefully checked by the author. There is no a clear protocol.

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

2.3 Shared machine shops as real-life laboratories: I think an statement like this corresponds to the conclusion but doesn’t suit to the theoretical framework. The 2.3 content is a part of the previous 2.1 and 2.2, maybe is better to include it there instead of create a new subsection.

Reviewer: maxigas

1. Is the subject matter relevant?

The paper offers a new conceptual framework to theorise Shared Machine Shops in their social context, especially regard to innovation processes. Therefore the subject matter is highly relevant.

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 angle from which the author approaches the topic is intellectually interesting, e.g. why accounts which query the social potential of SMSs and contrast their promises to what they deliver are insufficient to make social scientific sense of the phenomena. The suggestion is to place SMSs in the wider social process of innovation and contextualise them as elements in the transformation to a reflexive innovation society. Furthermore, the idea that it is not only the concrete projects carried out in the framework of SMSs but also the institutions themselves can be conceived as experiments is a clever twist.

It would benefit the paper to engage with the literature on peer production (Benkler, Bauwens, Rigi, etc.) explicitly to highlight what the experiment/niche approach adds to the state of the art.

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

What is reflexive about the innovation society or about SMSs is never clarified in the course of the paper. Also, the concept of niche which shields innovations does not integrate well into the wider narrative about the increasing connectedness and dispersion of innovation processes in society. It is not a problem to present two contradictory dymamics as part of the analytical framework – it can actually serve as the engine of the analysis. But the connection between them have to be more nuanced.

Since the article does not enter into an explicit dialogue with rival formulations, it is not very clear, however, what we gain from this new conceptualisation.

4. Is the article well written?

Apart from hypenation problems (marked inline), the paper is well written.

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

No, the sections build upon each other and there is a cumulative effect of the argument which is adequately leveraged in the discussion and conclusion sections.