Article proposes a critique of a policy or practice with specific action proposals or suggestions: yes
Article follows conventions of academic research article — e.g. position in literature, cited sources, and claimed contribution: yes
Article is based on developments that have not yet occurred: no
Article is based on formal logic or mathematical technique: no
Standard of English expression in article is excellent: yes
Scope of debate
Article addresses an issue which is widely known and debated: yes
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]: yes
Ideas are well organised in article: yes
The argument presented in article is new: yes
The article has been significantly changed as a result of the review process: somewhat, yes
Reviewer A: This article introduces a new theoretical framework of an ‘action landscape’ to help understand the social/legal/political regulatory potentialities for additive manufacturing. It builds on similar frameworks (Lessig etc.) and historical errors of technology regulation to argue specific policy goals in the additive manufacturing context. Doing so through the case study of creating weapons, provides a clear example of the consequences for both IP and society.
Reviewer B: Generally, the authors have answered the queries, which is good. However, they still over-use the royal ‘we’ in the paper and don’t really deal with Obama’s position on 3d printing.