Review A
Reviewer: Anonymous
1) Is the subject matter relevant?
The reading of the commons rooted in Hannah Arendt’s philosophy is an interesting and promising one. Nevertheless, the special issue focuses on reading the commons and peer production through the intersection of STS and ICT and the paper is not positioning itself in relation to these two fields if not for a few references. An example is the later treatment of transhumanism and posthumanism, the former treated as an object of inquiry a là STS, the latter as a useful approach (based on STS) to think about the commons. The relation between the two is not articulated enough and in relation to the themes of the JOPP issue to which the paper has been submitted.
2) Is the treatment of the subject matter intellectually interesting? Are there citations or bodies of literature you think are essential to which the author has not referred?
The lack of positioning in relation to the topics of the special issue makes very difficult to have a sense of how much the subject of the paper is covered with sufficient literature. For example, if the paper was framed as an STS contribution, it has been surprising not to find references to the work Latour has conducted with Strum in the 80s, as some of the arguments unfolded through Arendt, e.g. the making of the world from earth, reasonate a lot with such work. Differently, an ICT focus would have stressed more how the commons are related to technologies, for example positioning the paper argument in relation to the work of Hess and Ostrom on “knowledge as a commons”, of David Hakken on values, computing, and commons, or of Liesbeth Huybrecths on Arent, work, and digital technologies.
3) Are there any noticeable problems with the author’s means of validating assumptions or making judgments?
No, the paper is well written on that respect. The only point that requires deeper thinking is the relation between transhumanism and posthumanism as presented here, as well as a clarification of the relationship between the different parts of the text. Not having a traditional literature review section nor a traditional discussion section makes necessary for the author to find ways to satisfy the functional roles that those sections normally accomplish: to position the paper in a field and to connect the different parts of the argument.
4) Is the article well written?
There are few typos. Other than that, the article is a nice reading.
5) Are there portions of the article that you recommend be shortened, excised or expanded?
As said, the absence of sections like literature review or discussion, challenge the author in making some part of the message more clear. At the same time, the transhumanism and posthumanism sections requires some better framing.
Review B
Reviewer: Anonymous
1) Is the subject matter relevant?
This article highlights a number of interesting debates at the intersection of posthumanism and environmental considerations. Overall, it is relevant but it is unclear whether this topic as well as this writing style is a good fit for the Journal of Peer Production.
2) Is the treatment of the subject matter intellectually interesting? Are there citations or bodies of literature you think are essential to which the author has not referred?
This is predominantly a “theory-paper”, bringing together Arendt, Hayles and other theorists in order to contribute to thinking about an Arendtian interpretation of the tragedy of the commons. While the proposal/abstract for the paper is interesting, the narrative does not really fulfill it’s promise. There is a body of work on the posthuman that is not well reviewed or considered i.e. Bradotti, Latour, Haraway, Thrift, Ferrando as well as other theorists in the feminist new materialist tradition. Rather than a complete literature review, the paper hangs on the intersections of 2-3 main theorists. This is essential given the fact that theories around the posthuman (and the more than human) are actively being developed today, especially with the consideration of environmental issues & the multispecies. Overall, the paper is not written in a way that brings the excitement around these topics to life in an intellectually interesting and urgent way. What are the stakes of this approach? Who might care? So what?
3) Are there any noticeable problems with the author’s means of validating assumptions or making judgments?
The paper may be trying to do too much, which results in problems with the aspirations/goals of the paper vs. the actual arguments presented. It seems that the authors are much more deeply knowledgeable about Arendt than about posthumanism and, in particular, critical posthumanism. To add to this, the topic of the tragedy of the commons is also vast and complex. Thus, the arguments that are presented, while promising are rather weak and lifeless in the current formulation. Some examples might help bring the stakes of these arguments to life. But, as a theory paper, it does not succeed in its ambitions. It also might help to clarify more directly for which disciplines, communities or audiences is the paper targeted. This would help to know whether the assumptions and judgments make sense within that context.
4) Is the article well written?
The paper is not well-written or enjoyable to read. It is primarily a long series of philosophical statements and quotations that are not particularly well-grounded in any examples or cases. This might be fine for a “theory-paper” but, for the Journal of Peer Production, I would expect are more empirically focused paper with exciting and relevant examples. The paper is very abstract, it has many unfinished paragraphs (with only 1-2 sentences) and, overall, seems much to rough and unfocused to warrant publication without significant reframing/rethinking. There are no clear signposts about what the paper is trying to do in order to bring the reader along.
5) Are there portions of the article that you recommend be shortened, excised or expanded?
Overall, it seems that the article could be shortened quite a bit to focus just on a key
argument. As is, the paper is overly long without a clear focus/purpose. The narrative
goes on and on with additional quotes but nothing really comes to life in an exciting
way.