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 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: 2/3*

Standard of English expression in article is excellent.

Subjective categories

Comprehensiveness: 1/3*

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: 0/3*

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

Science and technology studies meets informatics, economics and law:
an interesting perspective on P2P.

Reviewer B

The main concern with this essay is its recreation a series of methodological insights that are already well-established in several different areas of study (STS, Software Studies, Media Archaeology etc.) without really adding anything. The method itself — to “care about the plumbing” — is not at all problematic, but the article would be much stronger if it simply demonstrated this method, as the author claims to have already done in their PhD research.

Reviewer C

A worthwhile effort that brings an STS perspective to the study of peer production, though there are issues with the use of the literature.