Activist: 0/3
Article proposes a critique of a policy or practice with specific action proposals or suggestions.
Academic: 3/3*
Article follows conventions of academic research article e.g. position in literature, cited sources, and claimed contribution.
Prospective: 1/3
Article is based on developments that have not yet occurred.
Formalised: 1/3
Article is based on formal logic or mathematical technique.
Language quality: 3/3*
Standard of English expression in article is excellent.
Scope of debate: 2/3
Article addresses an issue which is widely known and debated.
Comprehensiveness: 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].
Logical flow: 3/3*
Ideas are well organised in article.
Originality: 2,5/3*
The argument presented in article is new.
Review impact: 2,5/3
The article has been significantly changed as a result of the review process.
Reviewers indicate their appreciation of the article in the form of a 50 word statement.
Reviewer A
The article presents a clear summary of philosophical and technical debates about the social benefits generated by relocalising production and sharing techniques. It features examples taken from really existing self-sufficient production, and does not shy away from exploring contradictions and limitations, though arguably could say more about how capitalist and open labour (will) co-exist.
Reviewer B
Reviewer C
The article has been improved substantially since its initial submission. It provides a very important contribution to the debate on community-based spaces for collaborative design and production by intersecting ‘open source ecology’ with key themes of sociological and political debate, such as post-consumerism, distributivist political economy, degrowth, and alternative modes of production and management of common pool resources.
