Article proposes a critique of a policy or practice with specific action proposals or suggestions.
Article follows conventions of academic research article e.g. position in literature, cited sources, and claimed contribution.
Article is based on developments that have not yet occurred.
Article is based on formal logic or mathematical technique.
Language quality: 3/3*
Standard of English expression in article is excellent.
Scope of debate: 2/3
Article addresses an issue which is widely known and debated.
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.
The argument presented in article is new.
Review impact: 2/3
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.
A theoretical contribution to ongoing debates on how to understand peer production and its potential for desirable future change, issued from a Marxist perspective.
It is a well written and interesting contribution to an emerging debate that is expected to attract more interest.
This article has addressed the concerns of the previous review and is greatly strengthened as a result. I would recommend publication of the article in its current form as an interesting intervention into the debates on peer production, positioned within a debate between P2P and autonomist Marxist literature.