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: 0/3
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: 3/3
The article has been significantly changed as a result of the review process: 2/3
Reviewer A: The article offers a novel conceptualisation of Shared Machine Shops as real-life laboratories, based on an extensive discussion of the literature and second hand analysis of two cases. It locates the phenomena in the broader context of the science-society nexus and the circuits of innovation. Valuable base research.
Reviewer B: I appreciate the inclusion of Michel Callon concept “research in the wild” but is not clear how it relate to the more exclusive practice of citizen science. I recommend to eliminate “real-world laboratories” and “real-time laboratories” because these concepts appear without an explanation. The main concept of “real-life laboratories” should not be changed.
Reviewer C: The paper introduces of the concept of real life laboratories as perspective on shared machine shops following the suggestion of practitioners. It will be interesting to see to what extent this appropriation is encouraged or contested by the academics who proposed the concept in the first place.