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: 0/2
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: 1/2
Article addresses an issue which is widely known and debated: yes / no
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: 2/2*
Ideas are well organised in article.
Originality: 0.5/2*
The argument presented in article is new.
Review impact 1.5/2
The article has been significantly changed as a result of the review process yes/no
Commendations
Reviewer A
The paper has been much improved since the review. It presents an interesting argument for co-production of artefacts and the impact of co-production on perceived and actual value of objects. There is a clear position in existing literature, the study presents reasonable evidence for the insights it claims, and shows a realistic view on its limitations.
Reviewer B
The article explores how maker practices can be incorporated in heritage institutions. The authors present an interesting study of how 3D printed souvenirs may complement visitors’ heritage experience. Their insights are especially relevant for heritage practitioners and museums’ audience development. The paper has been thoroughly revised and improved as a result of the review process.