Signals are an important part of the JoPP peer review process. They are intended to widen the scope of publishable articles by placing the reputational cost of publication on authors rather than on the journal.
Please note:
Positive signal = 1, negative signal = 0, positive/negative signal = 0.5
Only signals marked with a “*” are used to calculate the JoPP Signal (on the peer reviewed paper pages).
Objective categories
Activist: 1/3
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: 0/3
Article is based on developments that have not yet occurred.
Formalised: 0/3
Article is based on formal logic or mathematical technique.
Language quality: 3/3*
Standard of English expression in article is excellent.
Subjective categories
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: 2.5/3*
Ideas are well organised in article.
Originality: 2.5/3*
The argument presented in article is new.
Commendations
Reviewers indicate their appreciation of the article in the form of a 50 word statement. [Alternatively: recommendation to others 1 (only to those with a very specific interest) to 10 (essential knowledge for all)]
Reviewer A
The paper does an outstanding job of providing a systematic and generative framework for critical interrogation of the authority structures present in Wikipedia, and by extension in similar peer-production environments.
Reviewer B
The article is of interest to Wikipedia researchers; as well as to researchers and practicioners who would like to rethink the critical character of research.
Reviewer C
This paper provides an excellent analytical critique of the way authority for the accuracy, relevance and appropriateness of the produced materials may be understood in peer-produced online publishing. In particular, the paper identifies that the shift towards participatory, horizontal structures of power in organisations that collaborate online does not, of itself, guarantee just outcomes. Rather, as the paper proposes, new forms of scrutiny are needed which take account of the different ethical challenges for such production.