Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The content of this article is quite good and, I suspect, will be of value to readers, especially those who may not have access to a national user group at present. That said, the manuscript could use a thorough edit for clarity and readability. For example, try to avoid informal phrases like "in it for the long run" (lines 113-114) and try to consolidate paragraphs like the ones in lines 177 and 179 to avoid redundancy. I would certainly recommend publishing this article after a rewrite/edit to address concerns like these.

Author Response

Thank you fore reviewing our article and giving your advice. The manusscript was now read by two natural English speakers, one of them with knowledge in this area.

Reviewer 2 Report

Overall, some good material from research of the subject but analysis seems to remain descriptive.

The paper is not complete it may be lacking key elements such as references, tables and figures. Extensive editing of English language and style required.

Author Response

Thank you for the review of our paper and your valuable advice. The article was read by two natural English speakers, one of them with knowledge in this particular field.

Due to the nature of this paper, which is not scientific or technological, but rather community oriented and base on activities that started a year ago, we couldn't add as many data as we would have liked to. Nevertheless, we added information about history of the DSpace project with as much references we were able to find and create figures showing the development of DSpace and its user groups.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Good effort. The paper presenting an interesting case study on the DSpace-Konsortium Deutschland and explain its’ relation to the broader context of how to build national user groups. Great use of tables, charts and bibliographical references as well. All these key elements of the paper were greatly appreciated. Well done.