Article proposes a critique of a policy or practice with specific action proposals or suggestions: 1/3
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: 0.5/3
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: 2/3
The argument presented in article is new: 2.5/3
The article has been significantly changed as a result of the review process: 2/3
Reviewer A: The author investigates an important and interesting precursor of current shared machine shops: Technology Networks in London. It demonstrates that both should be understood in the context of their interaction with larger political/economic/social forces. The article is interesting for both scholars and activists since it offers historical experience.
Reviewer B: This article points out that the emergence of shared machine shops is not a historically unique development. It traces the history, development and failing of Technology Networks in Greater London in the mid-1980s. It historically reflects their political stance against emergent neoliberalism.
Reviewer C: This very informative article was improved considerably during the revision and is now ready to become published. Thank you very much for the opportunity to review it, I gained a lot of useful insights.