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: 3/3
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: 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.
Approaching crowdsourced science through the lens of labor provides a refreshing take on these processes. This may be more useful to a critical understanding of contemporary citizen science than the democratization rhetorics that still inform much STS scholarship on this topic.
This is an interesting article that has been strengthened as a result of the review process. It uses a case study to demonstrate that not all free labour in a capitalist pursuit need be exploitative. I look forward to seeing this piece published.
This article offers a very interesting view on peer production and especially on organizing and managing the work of participants and their motivation in a specific case of peer-production localized in a physical space, a geographical context and an online platform. Therefore it can provide therefore insights on expanding peer-production in physical and geographical contexts and with a more inclusive and small scale format.