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: 1/2
Article is based on formal logic or mathematical technique.
Language quality: 0/2*
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: 2/2*
Ideas are well organised in article.
Originality: 2/2*
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 paper analyses empirical and secondary data to examine how Chinese citizens, NGOs and media have fostered civil society awareness about air pollution through knowledge that promotes public participation, e.g. citizen science. Crucially, it is argued this provides a ‘safe space’ for social action around environmental health issues in China.
Reviewer B
Hernandez follows a complex interplay between government and activists over a longitudinal period that encompasses changes of strategy, tactics, environment, and politics. The paper retains important illustrative specifics while also demonstrating large structural shifts.
I also need to add that I have continued concerns about the article’s quality of English, especially with regards to grammar and punctuation. There are many places where entities are incorrectly attributed and/or items are portrayed as plural or singular when they should be the opposite – see article attached entitled ‘Anonymous’, where I have outlined examples of these issues in red, up to page 5. The edits left to be made are subtle, but many. As such, I would suggest another round of (professional!) copy editing to ensure the article meets the standards of publication