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: 0/3
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: 0/3
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.
The authors have now more thoroughly positioned their work within the broader literature, and the modified paper structure enables a better read of the platform concept and its innovative aspects. Overall, I consider that my review points have been addressed (including in the plans for future research) and that the paper is suitable for publication.
The article offers an excellent description and in-depth analysis of the remarkable practice of collaborative note taking set up in the case of Teixidora in Barcelona. I believe this project can serve as a model and this article is co-constitutive to its development.
This is a very interesting article documenting an ongoing process of establishing a collaborative note taking methodology in events. I wish some of my suggestions for improvement, especially in addressing the truly “social” dimension of the problem would be better addressed, but still this is a very valuable work that will hopefully continue and inspire also others to replicate in different contexts.