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 (why free software is not the antonym of commercial software) 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: 1.5/3*

Standard of English expression in article is excellent.

Subjective categories

Comprehensiveness: 2/3*

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: 3/3

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 is an informative article and presents very interesting empirical material. But it lacks theoretical depth. The use of Latour`s actor-network theory does not result in any interesting interpretation of the empirical data. It has a mere ornamental presence. But, the article can be published due to richness of its case studies.

Reviewer B

Recommendation to accept paper after revision to address above issues.

Reviewer C

The core argument of the authors is that the opposition between “commercial software” and FOSS made in some academic texts about hackers contradicts the disourse of the practitioners/developers themselves. This point is well taken, but the case against academic thinking in general (pared with an appeal for ethnomethodology) is ultimately unconvincing, because the authors pass in silence over the many scholarly works well versed in the ambiguities of hacking.