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: 2/3
Article is based on developments that have not yet occurred: 0/3
Article is based on formal logic or mathematical technique: 1/3
Standard of English expression in article is excellent: 3/3
Scope of debate
Article addresses an issue which is widely known and debated: 3/3
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: 3/3
Reviewer A: What is interesting about the paper is that it explores in a mostly descriptive fashion the existence of barriers to knowledge sharing between FabLabs. Thereby it offers a first, quick and eclectic view of how collaboration in projects connecting FabLabs worldwide develops, highlighting the role of documentation and – in a mostly speculative fashion – tacit knowledge.
Reviewer B: The article spells out the mission of Fab Labs and other Shared Machine Shops to feed in and out of a global knowledge commons. Based on an empirical survey it shows the limited nature of current practices and identifies barriers for developing it. Instructive reading for anybody who identifies with such goals.
Reviewer C: A helpful study of interviews with Fab Lab users’ involved in knowledge sharing between workshops. Useful issues about documentation and social media are identified. Critical challenges and interesting possibilities for greater sharing between FabLabs point to areas for further practical and research development.