Transformative Potential of Digital Manufacturing Laboratories: Insights from Mexico and Spain

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Main Research Question The central question addressed by the research is: "How do the types of embeddedness (relationships with external factors such as governments, universities, and firms) affect the governance, autonomy, and transformative capacity of Digital Manufacturing Laboratories (DMLs) in different sociopolitical contexts?"

This question is further broken down into two key aspects:

Governance & Autonomy: How do different forms of support (or lack thereof) from regime actors (e.g., public policies, private funding, institutional backing) influence the stability and independence of DMLs?

Transformative Potential: To what extent do these relationships enable or constrain DMLs in driving systemic change within the digital sociotechnical system, rather than merely conforming to existing structures?

The study explores this by comparing two DMLs—FabLab Impact (Mexico City, Mexico) and FabLabVLC (Valencia, Spain)—highlighting how their differing levels of institutional embeddedness shape their operational models, resilience, and long-term sustainability.

Why This Question Matters     The research fills a gap in understanding how contextual factors (e.g., government policies, private sector involvement, university partnerships) determine whether DMLs can act as transformative innovation spaces or remain dependent on existing power structures. It challenges the assumption that open-access digital fabrication labs inherently democratize innovation, showing instead that their impact is heavily mediated by external support systems.

Originality and Relevance         The topic of the article is highly relevant to the field of innovation studies, particularly in the context of digital sociotechnical systems and transformative innovation. It addresses a specific gap by examining the role of Digital Manufacturing Laboratories (DMLs) in Mexico and Spain, focusing on their embeddedness within protective spaces and their relationships with various social actors. The comparative analysis of two distinct contexts (Mexico and Spain) provides a nuanced understanding of how different institutional and policy environments influence the sustainability and transformative potential of DMLs. This focus on contextual differences and the role of embeddedness fills a gap in the literature, which often overlooks the variability of DMLs' operational environments.

Contribution to the Subject Area             

The article adds value by: Comparative Analysis: It offers a rare comparative study of DMLs in two different socioeconomic and political contexts, highlighting how institutional support (or lack thereof) shapes their trajectories. Theoretical Framework: It applies the transformative innovation approach, including concepts like "protective space" and "embeddedness," to analyze DMLs, providing a robust theoretical lens. Empirical Insights: The case studies illustrate the practical challenges and opportunities faced by DMLs, such as resilience in crises (e.g., earthquakes, pandemics) and the impact of public policies. Critical Perspective: It critiques the limitations of DMLs in achieving systemic transformation, emphasizing their dependence on regime actors and the commodification of digital commons.

Methodological Improvements

The authors could consider the following improvements: Triangulation: While the study uses interviews, observations, and social media monitoring, incorporating quantitative data (e.g., surveys of DML users) could strengthen the findings. Longitudinal Analysis: The article covers a period from 2017 onward, but a more structured longitudinal analysis could better capture the evolution of DMLs over time. Broader Sample: Expanding the number of case studies or including perspectives from a wider range of stakeholders (e.g., policymakers, private sector representatives) could enhance generalizability. Explicit Methodology: The methodology section could be more detailed, clarifying how data was analyzed (e.g., thematic analysis, coding processes) and how biases were mitigated.

Consistency of Conclusions

The conclusions are consistent with the evidence and arguments presented. The authors effectively tie their findings back to the central question of how embeddedness affects the governance and autonomy of DMLs. They demonstrate that while both labs have transformative potential, their effectiveness and sustainability are heavily influenced by their relationships with regime actors. The Mexican lab's autonomy comes at the cost of instability, while the Spanish lab's institutional support provides stability but limits independence. These conclusions align well with the empirical data and theoretical framework.

Appropriateness of References

The references are appropriate and cover a broad range of relevant literature, including foundational works on sociotechnical transitions (Geels, Schot), transformative innovation (Smith, Raven), and digital commons (Hess, Ostrom). The inclusion of recent and diverse sources strengthens the article's theoretical and empirical grounding. However, adding more references from Latin American scholars could provide a more balanced perspective, especially for the Mexican context.

Additional Comments on Tables and Figures

The article does not include tables or figures, which could have enhanced its clarity and impact. For example: A table comparing the key characteristics of the two DMLs (e.g., funding sources, governance models, challenges) would help readers visualize the differences. A figure illustrating the multilevel perspective (landscape, regime, niche) applied to the case studies could clarify the theoretical framework. Graphs showing trends in funding, user engagement, or project outcomes over time could strengthen the empirical analysis.

General Comments

The article is well-written and makes a significant contribution to the field. Its strengths lie in the comparative approach, theoretical rigor, and critical perspective. However, the absence of visual aids and limited methodological detail are minor drawbacks. Addressing these would improve the article's accessibility and robustness. Overall, it is a valuable piece for researchers and practitioners interested in innovation, digital fabrication, and sociotechnical transitions.

Author Response

The title has change from: Open innovation, knowledge creation and organizational learning in Makerspaces: comparative insights from Mexico and Spain to Transformative potential of digital manufacturing laboratories: insights from Mexico and Spain.

REVIEWER 1 comments

Methodological Improvements

The authors could consider the following improvements: Triangulation: While the study uses interviews, observations, and social media monitoring, incorporating quantitative data (e.g., surveys of DML users) could strengthen the findings. Longitudinal Analysis: The article covers a period from 2017 onward, but a more structured longitudinal analysis could better capture the evolution of DMLs over time. Broader Sample: Expanding the number of case studies or including perspectives from a wider range of stakeholders (e.g., policymakers, private sector representatives) could enhance generalizability. Explicit Methodology: The methodology section could be more detailed, clarifying how data was analyzed (e.g., thematic analysis, coding processes) and how biases were mitigated.

----

Thank you for your thoughtful and constructive feedback regarding the methodological dimension of our manuscript. We appreciate your suggestions and have carefully considered each point.

Regarding your recommendation to incorporate a longitudinal quantitative analysis, we fully agree on its potential value; however, implementing such an approach would require designing a separate research project with new data collection instruments and extended timeframes. As such, we have not included this suggestion in the current version, since it exceeds the scope of our original study. Nonetheless, we do acknowledge and discuss the longitudinal nature of our engagement with the cases on lines 257–258 (p. 6), and we explicitly reflect on the limitations of our qualitative longitudinal approach on lines 345 and 357–362 (pp. 7–8).

We have significantly revised the methodology section to address your comments. The entire section has been rewritten to include a detailed explanation of our thematic analysis, coding procedures, and the strategies employed to mitigate bias within a qualitative case study framework. These improvements can be found throughout Section 4: Materials and Methods (pp. 5–8).

We hope these clarifications and revisions address your concerns, and we remain grateful for your valuable input, which helped us improve the clarity and rigor of our work.

----

Appropriateness of References

The references are appropriate and cover a broad range of relevant literature, including foundational works on sociotechnical transitions (Geels, Schot), transformative innovation (Smith, Raven), and digital commons (Hess, Ostrom). The inclusion of recent and diverse sources strengthens the article's theoretical and empirical grounding. However, adding more references from Latin American scholars could provide a more balanced perspective, especially for the Mexican context.

----

Thank you for your valuable suggestion regarding the inclusion of more references from Latin American scholars. We fully appreciate the importance of diversifying the epistemological landscape and recognize the potential contribution of regional perspectives, especially in relation to the Mexican case.

However, the primary aim of this article is to introduce a systemic and comparative perspective rooted in the field of transformative innovation, with particular emphasis on sociotechnical transitions and the position of digital makerspaces within global digital regimes. For this reason, our theoretical and methodological choices are mainly based on consolidated frameworks developed by scholars such as Geels, Schot, Smith, Raven, Hess, and Ostrom. This foundation allows us to construct a critical dialogue between the empirical findings and the systemic perspective that underpins the article.

One of the authors has been conducting research on digital innovation ecosystems in Latin America since 2017, with funding from the Research Division at Universidad Iberoamericana (projects such as “Futuros imaginados: Innovación, tecnología e inclusión social” and “Procesos de innovación en masa”). Although this work has generated valuable publications and doctoral theses, most of the available Latin American literature on makerspaces and digital labs tends to focus on cultural dynamics, entrepreneurial behavior, or policy evaluations. These studies—often promoted by development agencies—lack the conceptual and methodological grounding needed to engage with the systemic theoretical framework that guides this article. In some cases, the empirical data have proven to be unreliable, as digital labs listed in public registries no longer exist or were never fully operational.

Furthermore, the Mexican co-author is an active member of the Latin American Hub for Transformative Innovation, which has recently published relevant regional research (Abriendo paso a políticas y prácticas de innovación transformativa en América Latina, 2023). While this volume contributes to the broader discussion of transformative innovation in Latin America, it addresses different sectors (e.g., agribusiness, health inclusion, urban waste) and is not directly aligned with the specific focus of this paper.

In light of these considerations, and to maintain the internal coherence of the article’s conceptual framework, we have decided not to include additional Latin American references in this version. We do, however, welcome future dialogue on how regional scholarship can further enrich systemic approaches to innovation.

----

Additional Comments on Tables and Figures

The article does not include tables or figures, which could have enhanced its clarity and impact. For example: A table comparing the key characteristics of the two DMLs (e.g., funding sources, governance models, challenges) would help readers visualize the differences. A figure illustrating the multilevel perspective (landscape, regime, niche) applied to the case studies could clarify the theoretical framework. Graphs showing trends in funding, user engagement, or project outcomes over time could strengthen the empirical analysis.

----

Thank you for your helpful suggestion regarding the inclusion of tables and figures to enhance the clarity and communicative strength of the article.

In response, we have incorporated the following visual elements:

• Figure 1 (Socio-technical Digital System), introduced on line 174, page 4, illustrates the multilevel perspective (landscape, regime, niche) that informs our theoretical framework. This visual representation aims to support the reader’s understanding of how digital makerspaces are embedded within broader sociotechnical dynamics.
• Table 2 (Comparative Overview of FabLab Impact (Mexico) and FabLabVLC (Spain)), included on page 9, provides a structured comparison of the key characteristics of the two DMLs, including aspects such as funding sources, governance models, public policy support, institutional affiliation, and contextual challenges.

We believe these additions directly address your recommendation and contribute to a more accessible and analytically robust presentation of both the conceptual framework and the empirical findings.

----

General Comments

The article is well-written and makes a significant contribution to the field. Its strengths lie in the comparative approach, theoretical rigor, and critical perspective. However, the absence of visual aids and limited methodological detail are minor drawbacks. Addressing these would improve the article's accessibility and robustness. Overall, it is a valuable piece for researchers and practitioners interested in innovation, digital fabrication, and sociotechnical transitions.

We are sincerely grateful for your positive overall evaluation of the manuscript and for recognizing its contributions in terms of comparative insight, theoretical rigor, and critical perspective.

----

In response to your helpful suggestions regarding the inclusion of visual aids and the need for greater methodological clarity, we have introduced several key improvements:

• Figure 1 (Socio-technical Digital System), included on line 174, page 4, visually illustrates the multilevel framework (landscape, regime, niche) applied in our analysis. This figure supports a clearer understanding of how the two DMLs are positioned within the broader dynamics of sociotechnical transitions.
• Table 1 (Comparison of GDP per capita and GINI Coefficient between Spain and Mexico, and between Valencia and Mexico City), now included on line 321, page 7, provides important contextual data to support the interpretation of structural differences between the two cases. This addition strengthens the methodological transparency of our comparative approach.
• Table 2 (Comparative Overview of FabLab Impact and FabLabVLC), located on page 9, offers a concise, side-by-side summary of the key characteristics of both DMLs—covering governance models, funding sources, institutional support, and challenges—thereby improving readability and analytical clarity.

We believe that these additions address the concerns you raised and contribute to making the manuscript more accessible and robust for both academic and practitioner audiences.

Thank you again for your valuable and constructive feedback, which has undoubtedly enhanced the quality of the article.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments:
The core message in this paper seems to be that "contexts matters" - applied to what affects the success of DMLs (makerspaces/Fab-Labs) linked to cases in Mexico and Spain.
I comment the text chronological and then summarize at the end:
Section 01:
Using the transformative innovation approach, developed by SPRU/Sussex. (See https://tipconsortium.net/about-tipc/)
  - not focus on maximising economic growth but instead establishes STI as a crucial element in achieving SDGs.
  - building demonstrators
  - generat a globale community of practices
  Problem 01: The first characteristic feature of "the transformative innovation approach" does not appear in this paper. The balance between seeking economic growth and achieving the SDGs are not mentioned as objectives or frameworks for the DMLs. There one questions why this approach is highlighted here. 
RQ: How embeddedness affects DMLs - considering two cases: Mexico/Spain. 
Section 02  Main elements: DMLs in the Digital Sociotechnical Systems
Universal access to technology - Five ICT-trends (1.free software, 2.open access, 3.open source, 4.open data, and 5.open networks) => Contribute to digital commons.
Section 03: Framework: 
Main elements:  Three functional DML properties and three forms of embeddedness (Smith & Raven, 2012): 1)Shielding 2)Nurturing 3)Empowering,  and  1)active, 2)passive, 3)encryptive (last is their own invention).
Section 4: "Materials and methods"
  Problem 01: This chapter does not present how different contexts in Mexico and Spain will be taken into account. Are they to be cancelled out by adapting the scope of analysis? The economic differences are significant: GDP/capita-2024 + GINI: Mexico=14k$ + 43.5.  Spain= 35k$ + 33.9.  This methodological challenge should be recognized and mitigations should be discussed. A relevant element may be their common association with the prestigious CBA network, which to a certain degree may make them similar in their objectives and operations. But how much of the difference between the two cases may be explained by their cultural and economical differences, both in their internal operations and in their national environment?
  Problem 02: Sources? The chapter is a half page long presenting "a comparative method" through interviews and by studying the informants' social media accounts., but it does not disclose how many or how the informants were selected. This is required of any empirical study. 
  Problem 03: No data analysis seems to be applied in this paper - only an account of the differences in a chronological account in Chapter 5. 
Section 5: "Discussions..."
  Problem 01: Why isn't this chapter entitled "results" or "finding"? They should be presented before they are discussed.
This chapter gives a chronological account of differences between the two DMLs, referred to as addressing the "contextual dynamics" of the two cases. 
  Differences presented
   1) Mexico DML was created as an independent unit, while Spain DML was linked to UPV.  
   2) Mexico, after initial phase, did not receive government support, neither funding nor public policy support. Spain received generous government support and 
Section 6: "Conclusion"
This has the form of a discussion of the findings/differences presented in Chapter 5 with reference to the framework given by Smith & Raven (2012). This dicussion seems 
  Problem 01:  The end paragraph in Chapter 6 is the text that most resemble a traditional conclusion and may be re-cast as such if the rest of Chapter 6 should be entitled "Discussions".
  Page 10 (471-472) claims: "... marginalized populations who lack a digital or entrepreneurial mindset". But this lacks a reference. But this could also have linked the differences to the social environment of the Mexican DML in general. Instead the references is to active/passive embeddedness  which seems to have less explanatory power. 
COMMENTS:
1. The differences in the national economies and cultural/political histories should be addressed. As of now only institutional variables are addressed. National background differences (economic/cultural/political) could either be treated as  antecedents explaining differences in institutional characteristics, or one could try to show that the institutional differences are not affected by these background variables. Given that differences in chapter 5 are linked to economic support and institutional support, the former alternative seems to be the best. 
2. Interviews (how many, the selection criteria and the response rate) should be better explained. 
3. The way relevant data is identified from the transcripts should be explained. (A formal data analysis is needed.)
4. What do the results/discussion tell us for how DMLs can be most effective? Are there learning points with reference to embeddedness that may be applied to other cases. Chapter 4 should mention how the observations and findings in this paper may be generalized, and discuss the validity and reliability linked to this possibility.

Author Response

The title has change from: Open innovation, knowledge creation and organizational learning in Makerspaces: comparative insights from Mexico and Spain to Transformative potential of digital manufacturing laboratories: insights from Mexico and Spain.

 

REVIEWER 2 comments

 Section 01:

Problem 01: The first characteristic feature of "the transformative innovation approach" does not appear in this paper. The balance between seeking economic growth and achieving the SDGs are not mentioned as objectives or frameworks for the DMLs. There one questions why this approach is highlighted here. 

---

Thank you for your insightful observation regarding the limited articulation of the core features of the Transformative Innovation (TI) approach in the original version of the manuscript.

In response, we have substantially revised the introductory paragraph (lines 26–36, page 1) to clearly present the general principles of the TI approach, emphasizing its concern with aligning innovation processes not only with economic goals but also with broader societal challenges such as the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). These foundational aspects now frame the conceptual rationale of the article from the outset.

In addition, the basic components of the multilevel perspective—including the interaction between landscape, regime, and niche levels—have been explicitly introduced in Section 3. The key concepts used to analyze the digital sociotechnical system and its internal relations are now detailed from line 150 (page 4) to line 224 (page 5).

To further support the reader’s understanding of the TI framework, we have also added Figure 1 (line 175, page 4), which visually illustrates the systemic structure of the digital innovation ecosystem and clarifies the positioning of DMLs within it.

We believe these revisions strengthen the theoretical coherence of the manuscript and provide a clearer justification for applying the Transformative Innovation approach to our analysis.

 

Section 04:

Problem 01: This chapter does not present how different contexts in Mexico and Spain will be taken into account. Are they to be cancelled out by adapting the scope of analysis? The economic differences are significant: GDP/capita-2024 + GINI: Mexico=14k$ + 43.5.  Spain= 35k$ + 33.9.  This methodological challenge should be recognized and mitigations should be discussed. A relevant element may be their common association with the prestigious CBA network, which to a certain degree may make them similar in their objectives and operations. But how much of the difference between the two cases may be explained by their cultural and economical differences, both in their internal operations and in their national environment?

---

Thank you for highlighting the importance of addressing the contextual differences between Mexico and Spain—particularly regarding economic indicators such as GDP per capita and the GINI coefficient—in our methodological approach.

In response to your observation, we have revised Section 4: Materials and Methods to explicitly incorporate a discussion on the structural asymmetries between both national contexts. Specifically, we have added a comparative analysis of the GDP per capita and GINI index for both countries, as well as for their respective regions (Valencia and Mexico City), in order to reflect on how these macro-level differences shape the operational and strategic conditions of the two DMLs.

To strengthen this analysis, we have included a new Table 1 (lines 306–338, pages 6–7), which offers a concise overview of these economic disparities and supports our argument that any comparative case study involving global South and North contexts must account for such asymmetries.

While acknowledging these differences, we also discuss the shared framework provided by the global FabLab network (CBA-MIT), which offers common standards, values, and tools that facilitate a degree of convergence between the two cases. Nonetheless, we emphasize that these similarities do not override the structural, cultural, and institutional disparities that shape the practices and challenges of each DML. This reflection has helped refine our comparative logic and to justify our methodological design more clearly.

 

 Problem 02: Sources? The chapter is a half page long presenting "a comparative method" through interviews and by studying the informants' social media accounts., but it does not disclose how many or how the informants were selected. This is required of any empirical study. 

---

Thank you for your observation regarding the need to clarify the empirical sources and the process of informant selection. We fully agree that any empirical study must provide transparency in this regard.

In response, we have substantially expanded Section 4: Materials and Methods (lines 242–368, pages 5–8) to elaborate on the epistemological rationale for using an ethnographic approach, including the use of participant observation, informal interviews, and digital ethnography (e.g., monitoring of social media and online events). We have also addressed the practical procedures related to informant selection.

These additions aim to strengthen the methodological transparency of the study while also recognizing the limitations of working with fluid, open-ended innovation communities such as DMLs.

 
 Problem 03: No data analysis seems to be applied in this paper - only an account of the differences in a chronological account in Chapter 5. 

---

Thank you for your important observation regarding the need to clarify how data analysis was conducted. We acknowledge that the previous version of the manuscript did not sufficiently explain the analytical processes used.

In response, we have significantly expanded Section 4: Materials and Methods (lines 242–368, pages 5–8) to explicitly describe the analytical strategy applied to the empirical material. This revised section now outlines:

• The use of a thematic analysis approach, informed by categories derived from the theoretical framework (e.g., protective space, embeddedness, resources, governance, and institutional support);
• The process of coding empirical data, combining inductive insights from fieldwork with deductive categories aligned with the multilevel perspective;
• The logic of triangulation between different types of data (interviews, observations, social media content, and project documentation);
• The limitations of working within an ethnographic, case-based design, and how we mitigated potential biases in interpretation.

These methodological clarifications aim to demonstrate that the empirical material was not presented descriptively alone, but rather subjected to a structured and theory-informed analysis.

 

Section 5: "Discussions..."
  Problem 01: Why isn't this chapter entitled "results" or "finding"? They should be presented before they are discussed.

---

Thank you for your helpful suggestion regarding the structure and labeling of Section 5. We agree that empirical findings should be clearly distinguished before moving into interpretative discussion.

In response, we have renamed Section 5 to: “Results: Similarities and Differences in the Trajectories of Two DMLs”, to ensure alignment with academic conventions and to make clear that this section presents the main findings of the study prior to any broader discussion or theoretical implications.

This change clarifies the narrative structure of the article and reinforces the distinction between empirical presentation and analytical reflection.

 

Section 6: 

 Problem 01:  The end paragraph in Chapter 6 is the text that most resemble a traditional conclusion and may be re-cast as such if the rest of Chapter 6 should be entitled "Discussions".

---

We appreciate the reviewer’s insightful comment regarding the structure of our manuscript. In response, we have renamed the current Section 6 from "Conclusions" to "Discussion" to better reflect its content. Additionally, we have added a new Section 7 dedicated exclusively to the conclusions of the study. We believe this change improves the clarity and organization of the manuscript. 

 

 Page 10 (471-472) claims: "... marginalized populations who lack a digital or entrepreneurial mindset". But this lacks a reference. But this could also have linked the differences to the social environment of the Mexican DML in general. Instead the references is to active/passive embeddedness  which seems to have less explanatory power. 

---

Thank you for your valuable comment. One of the key criteria for inclusion in the FabLab network is the location within marginalized urban contexts. For example, FabLab Impact (Mexico) and FabLab Xabec (Valencia) were established in popular neighborhoods, as described in lines 409 to 431 on page 9. This contextualization helps explain the cognitive gaps identified in marginalized settings, which challenge the assumption of universal and neutral access to digital technology.

Rather than referencing existing literature, this insight is based on ethnographic data collected through direct, in situ observations at FabLab Impact and FabLab Xabec. Consequently, we initially did not include a formal reference. To address the reviewer’s concern, we have now explicitly included these ethnographic case studies and observations as supporting evidence (see Line 574, page 12), which clarify the role of social environment and cultural capital in shaping digital engagement and embeddedness in these marginalized contexts.

 

COMMENTS:
1. The differences in the national economies and cultural/political histories should be addressed. As of now only institutional variables are addressed. National background differences (economic/cultural/political) could either be treated as  antecedents explaining differences in institutional characteristics, or one could try to show that the institutional differences are not affected by these background variables. Given that differences in chapter 5 are linked to economic support and institutional support, the former alternative seems to be the best. 
2. Interviews (how many, the selection criteria and the response rate) should be better explained. 
3. The way relevant data is identified from the transcripts should be explained. (A formal data analysis is needed.)
4. What do the results/discussion tell us for how DMLs can be most effective? Are there learning points with reference to embeddedness that may be applied to other cases. Chapter 4 should mention how the observations and findings in this paper may be generalized, and discuss the validity and reliability linked to this possibility.

---

We thank the reviewer for these thoughtful and constructive suggestions. In response, we have expanded Section 4 Materials and Methods (Lines 242 to 368, pages 5–8) to address each of the points raised:

1. National economic, cultural, and political backgrounds: We now explicitly address the broader national contexts of Mexico and Spain, including also a comparative table.
2. Interview methodology: We have clarified the number of interviews conducted and the selection criteria for participants.
3. Data analysis procedures: We have added a more detailed explanation of how relevant data were extracted from the interview transcripts. This includes a description of our coding strategy.
4. Generalizability and implications for DML effectiveness: We have revised Chapter 4 to reflect on the broader implications of our findings for the design and operation of DMLs in other contexts. We also discuss how different forms of embeddedness (active vs. passive) may inform strategies for increasing the effectiveness of DMLs, particularly in marginalized settings.

We hope these additions and clarifications strengthen the manuscript and address the reviewer’s concerns.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

Thank you very much for your stimulating article, which I read with great interest. I consider the topic of DLM to be highly relevant—not least because, in my opinion, this approach has received too little attention in previous research. In this respect, I see your work as an important and promising contribution to the further development of the field. However, while reading, I noticed a few points that I think could be further refined. I would like to briefly outline these below:

Introduction and thematic focus

Although the introduction provides a careful explanation of the topic, it takes a rather long time to focus on DLM. A more concise introduction that places DLM at the center earlier on could highlight the relevance and focus of the work more clearly.

Case selection and methodological approach

The selection of cases should be justified more comprehensively in the methodology section. Why was a comparative case study design chosen? And to what extent are the selected cases particularly suitable for answering the research question?

Empirical material and evaluation

The description of the empirical material remains rather vague. It would be helpful to explain in more detail what data was collected, how it was evaluated, which methodological procedures were used, and who was involved in the data analysis.

Structure of the presentation of results

The discussion of the cases begins very abruptly. I would have liked to see a systematic presentation of the key findings first, in order to better understand the subsequent discussion.

Theoretical added value

Finally, it would be desirable to elaborate more on how your results contribute to the further development of existing theoretical approaches. In my opinion, this aspect has been somewhat neglected so far.

I wish you every success with the revision and look forward to the final version of your paper.

Author Response

The title has change from: Open innovation, knowledge creation and organizational learning in Makerspaces: comparative insights from Mexico and Spain to Transformative potential of digital manufacturing laboratories: insights from Mexico and Spain.

 

REVIEWER 3 comments

Introduction and thematic focus

Although the introduction provides a careful explanation of the topic, it takes a rather long time to focus on DLM. A more concise introduction that places DLM at the center earlier on could highlight the relevance and focus of the work more clearly.

---

We thank the reviewer for this helpful observation. In response, we have revised the introductory section to introduce Digital Manufacturing Laboratories (DMLs) from the very beginning of the manuscript (Lines 27 to 36, page 1). This restructuring aims to present the thematic focus more clearly and highlight the central relevance of DMLs within the broader discussion from the outset.

 

Case selection and methodological approach

The selection of cases should be justified more comprehensively in the methodology section. Why was a comparative case study design chosen? And to what extent are the selected cases particularly suitable for answering the research question?

---

We appreciate the reviewer’s comment regarding case selection and methodological design. In response, we have expanded and clarified the justification for the comparative case study approach in Section 4 Materials and Methods (Lines 242 to 368, page 5 to page 8).

We now explain in greater detail why a comparative case study was appropriate for our research objectives, particularly to explore how institutional and contextual factors influence the functioning of DMLs in different socio-economic environments. Additionally, we justify the selection of FabLab Impact (Mexico) and FabLab Xabec (Spain) as particularly suitable cases, given their similarities in mission but differences in institutional embeddedness, funding structures, and socio-political contexts. These contrasting yet comparable cases allow us to examine the role of institutional arrangements and local environments in shaping the effectiveness of DMLs in marginalized areas.

Empirical material and evaluation

The description of the empirical material remains rather vague. It would be helpful to explain in more detail what data was collected, how it was evaluated, which methodological procedures were used, and who was involved in the data analysis.

---

Thank you for this pertinent observation. In response, we have significantly elaborated the description of the empirical material and analytical procedures in Section 4 Materials and Methods (Lines 242 to 368, pages 5–8).

We now provide a clearer account of the types of data collected (including interviews, field notes, and observations), and the specific methodological steps followed for data analysis. This includes the coding process, and the identification of recurring themes. These additions aim to make the empirical basis and analytical rigor of the study more transparent and robust.

Structure of the presentation of results

The discussion of the cases begins very abruptly. I would have liked to see a systematic presentation of the key findings first, in order to better understand the subsequent discussion.

---

We appreciate the reviewer’s comment regarding the structure of the results section. At the beginning of Section 5 (Lines 406 to 407, pages 8–9), we now include an introductory paragraph that outlines the content of the section and provides orientation for the reader. Additionally, we have added a comparative table to make the key differences between the cases more accessible and visually clear.

We have opted for a detailed, descriptive approach in this section, consistent with ethnographic research strategies, where it is essential to first present rich, contextualized observations before moving on to analysis. The synthesis of the main findings and their analytical interpretation is concentrated in the newly retitled Section 6 Discussion. We believe this structure allows for a clearer separation between empirical description and theoretical reflection, in line with qualitative research conventions.

 

Theoretical added value

Finally, it would be desirable to elaborate more on how your results contribute to the further development of existing theoretical approaches. In my opinion, this aspect has been somewhat neglected so far.

---

We thank the reviewer for this important observation. In response, we have significantly expanded the theoretical implications of our findings in the newly added Section 7 Conclusions (Lines 652 to 690, pages 14–15).

This section now explicitly elaborates on how our results contribute to the refinement and further development of several key theoretical frameworks, including transformative innovation theory, science and technology studies (STS), critical innovation studies, and technological justice. Drawing from our comparative empirical findings, we illustrate the analytical value of combining theoretical constructs—such as protective space, embeddedness, and transformative innovation—with grounded, context-sensitive observations.

Specifically, our study:

1. Extends transformative innovation theory by showing how the potential for systemic change in Digital Manufacturing Laboratories (DMLs) is highly contingent on context-specific factors such as institutional alignment, resource availability, and socio-political embeddedness—especially in Global South settings.
2. Reconceptualizes the notion of protective space, emphasizing that such spaces are not uniformly stable or accessible, but rather shaped by political and economic asymmetries.
3. Refines the concept of embeddedness, proposing a multidimensional spectrum from grassroots to institutional forms, which differently mediate access to legitimacy, resources, and resilience.
4. Contributes to technological justice theory by highlighting the role of political agency, cultural appropriateness, and power dynamics in shaping how technologies are adopted, adapted, or constrained in marginalized settings.

We believe these theoretical contributions address the reviewer’s concern and offer a meaningful advancement of existing literature through the integration of empirical nuance and conceptual development.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

no comments 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Problem 01: 
I do not see that the "not maximizing economic growth" is addressed in this new version. This is not a major problem, but it does not do justice to the reference (SPRU/Sussex).

Problem 02:
The Methodology section is now addressing the social and economic differences between Mexico and Spain. Authors say they want to "embrace" the differences, rather than "controlling" them. This sounds hollow to me. The aim here should not only be to highlight the societal differences between the two countries, which now is done, but to consider how the societal differences may contribute to explain the different trajectories of the two laboratories. BUT: In parts of the discussion and in particular in the new text in the Conclusion section, the social economic structures at the national level is well described. In my level this satisfies the problem "02" items!

Problem 03:
This article does not include any systematic analysis of coded data.  The diachronic nature of this analysis and the different institutional and cultural settings of the two cases makes this difficult. But the result is that the study resembles a consultancy report. However, the academic references and efforts to generalize the findings in the Conclusion section helps!

Problem 04:
Much of the former conclusion text is now moved to the discussion section and a new conclusion text is in place  - well written in my view.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I am not competent to really judge the English language, but the clarity and logic is sometimes hidden by the use of overcomplicating concepts. Simple relationships need only simple language and concepts. 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Thank you for submitting the revised version of your manuscript. I truly appreciate the care and effort you have put into the revision.

I have carefully reviewed the changes and conclude that you have addressed my critical comments very effectively. The revised version presents your methodological approach much more clearly, and the presentation and discussion of the results are now significantly improved.

In light of these revisions, I have no further reservations regarding publication.

Once again, many thanks for your excellent and thoughtful revision.

Best wishes