The Journal of Peer Production - New perspectives on the implications of peer production for social change New perspectives on the implications of peer production for social change
(Signals) The Occupation of the INBA Theater image

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: 1/2

Article proposes a critique of a policy or practice with specific action proposals or suggestions.

Academic: 2/2*

Article follows conventions of academic research article ­­ e.g. position in literature, cited sources, and claimed contribution.

Prospective: 0/2

Article is based on developments that have not yet occurred.

Formalised: 0/2

Article is based on formal logic or mathematical technique.

Language quality: 1/2*

Standard of English expression in article is excellent.

Subjective categories

Scope of debate: 0/2

Article addresses an issue which is widely known and debated.

Comprehensiveness: 1/2*

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.

Originality: 2/2*

The argument presented in article is new.

Review impact: 1/2

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.

Reviewer A

This is a well-written and engaging paper that deals with an important topic, so I recommend it for publication. Hopefully the author will explore later on thoroughly the literature recommendation, which this final version of the paper overlooked due to a rather superficial take on Henri Lefebvre’s concept of “the right to difference” (1970). The review’s intention was to open up a broader perspective on this case, however, the paper makes a critical contribution to this CITY issue.

Reviewer B

The paper presents a historical account of an occupation and reads it in relation to the contemporary concepts of commons and right to the city, and treats a occupation as a site of knowledge production, not only example to be interpreted by the researcher in theoretical light. The paper can thus become a source of practical information of potential stumbling blocks to achieving longer term engagement and management of self-initiated institution after occupation.

Reviewer C