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: 2/2*
Standard of English expression in article is excellent.
Scope of debate: 0/2
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: 2/2*
Ideas are well organised in article.
The argument presented in article is new.
Review impact: 0/0
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.
This article is a reflection on an experiment in commons-based publishing and commons-based printing. The article is of interest particularly for readers with an activist agenda who want to take open-access publishing one step further and explore options for commons-based book printing.
The article proposes the Peer Production License to be used as a kind of medieval guild system: commodification and profit maximizing on the “outside” while promoting solidarity and counter-commodification in the “inside”. Their case study is a collective decentralized text translation project which was successfully backed by a crowd source campain on Goteo and should be globally published by a worldwide consortium producing locally printed book copies and a globally available e-book.