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: 2/2*
Standard of English expression in article is excellent.
Subjective categories
Scope of debate: 2/2
Article addresses an issue which is widely known and debated.
Comprehensiveness: 2/2*
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: 1/2*
Ideas are well organised in article.
Originality: 1/2*
The argument presented in article is new.
Review impact: 1/2
The article has been significantly changed as a result of the review process
Commendations
Reviewers indicate their appreciation of the article in the form of a 50 word statement.
Reviewer A
The quantitative analysis presented in this article is interesting to some extent but not sufficient to support the ambitious concepts put forward in the introduction.
Reviewer B
The author has made significant changes to the original article resulting in a much improved approach that draws together theory and application to provide a better understanding/analysis of hackerspace networks and the connections between various actors.