The Journal of Peer Production - New perspectives on the implications of peer production for social change New perspectives on the implications of peer production for social change
Signals (Authority in peer production) image

Signals are an important part of the CSPP 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: 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: 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: 3/3*

Ideas are well organised in article.

Originality: 2/3*

The argument presented in article is new.

Review impact: 1/3

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

This article is a very good treatment of the organizational dynamics within open source communities. It’s empirically grounded but raises questions about this type of organization that go well beyond the particular case.

Reviewer B

Essential reading for anyone interested in governance in self-organized, self-managed software projects. Limited by the insufficiency of Weberian analytical framework for evaluating democracy and its economic aspects. Briefly discusses economic aspects of directly democratic peer governance in the conclusion, thus inviting the reader to investigate further in that direction.

Reviewer C

This article extends the debate concerning the construction of authority in the process of open source software community growth.  The author demonstrates for the case of FreeBSD the contingency of the form of governance on the growth of the community and offers Weberian interpretations of FreeBSD experience.