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 publishing an imperfect article 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.
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: 0/3*
Standard of English expression in article is excellent.
Subjective categories
Scope of debate: 3/3
Article addresses an issue which is widely known and debated.
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: 2/3*
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.
Commendations
Reviewers indicate their appreciation of the article in the form of a 50 word statement.
Reviewer A
The novelty and interest of this article stand in the study of teachers in the production of open knowledge in a hybrid form between commercial practices and peer production. The article reconstructs the subjective perspectives of the people involved in relation to organizational change in the specific case.
Reviewer B
As someone who has been following open source research for a while it is satisfying to come across the occasional longitudinal case study. Sésamath is an interesting project and it is nice to see its history documented here.
Reviewer C
This article provides timely insight to contributors in open projects, beyond software. The authors made a significant effort to improve the language quality and to restructure their article to increase readability and clarity. However, their focus, teachers’ motivations for contributing to open textbooks in connection with organisational changes and bureaucratisation processes, could be clarified. The article lacks more recent work and still features incomplete references.