Article proposes a critique of a policy or practice with specific action proposals or suggestions: 0.5/3
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: 0.5/3
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: 2.5/3
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: 3/3
The argument presented in article is new: 2.5/3
The article has been significantly changed as a result of the review process: 3/3
Reviewer A: The article traces the discoursive formations around one of the first Fab Labs and constrasts them with the observable reality as independently experienced by the two authors. The results show the flexibility and domestication of the Fab Lab concept and that this one has become more of a community centre.
Reviewer B: This ethnographic study explores the sociocultural and technical positions of one of the world’s earliest Fab Labs. The work contributes to research on peer production with an eye to shared workspaces, specifically focusing on Fab Lab identity formation, both internally and as it presents itself to the public.
Reviewer C: The authors have truly transformed their article! It is much improved by their efforts and warrants inclusion in the journal. I think the authors have dealt very nicely with my original concerns. One question about the illustrations – referenced is a previous illustration, figure 2, which was not included as far as I could see in this set of docs. Copied with this revised article, however, was a summary figure 1 that is quite nice and deserves a bit more description in the article.