Signals are an important part of the CSPP peer review process. They are intended to widen the scope of publishable articles by placing the reputational cost of publication 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 (on the peer reviewed paper pages).
Objective categories
Activist: 1/2
Article proposes a critique of a policy or practice with specific action proposals or suggestions.
Academic: 1.5/2*
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: 1.5/2*
Standard of English expression in article is excellent.
Subjective categories
Scope of debate: 1.5/2
Article addresses an issue which is widely known and debated.
Comprehensiveness: 1.5/2*
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:1.5/2*
Ideas are well organised in article.
Originality: 1.5/2*
The argument presented in article is new.
Review impact: 2/2
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
This article presents some very interesting insights into the way in which large commercial firms are able to co-opt and coordinate the activities of independent developers. What was once an emergent phenomenon may now become an innovation strategy applicable to many firms.
Reviewer B
Approaching open innovation through the concept of configuration provides a new angle of attack to address the asymmetrical relationships between large firms and peer communities. This may be useful to a critical understanding of the entanglements of powers during the innovation process and might renew innovation studies.