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
Article proposes a critique of a policy or practice with specific action proposals or suggestions: 1/2
Academic*
Article follows conventions of academic research article — e.g. position in literature, cited sources, and claimed contribution: 2/2
Prospective
Article is based on developments that have not yet occurred: 1/2
Formalised
Article is based on formal logic or mathematical technique: 0/2
Language quality*
Standard of English expression in article is excellent: 1,5/2
Subjective categories
Comprehensiveness*
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]: 1/2
Logical flow*
Ideas are well organised in article: 1/2
Originality*
The argument presented in article is new: 2/2
Review impact
The article has been significantly changed as a result of the review process: 1,5/2
Commendations
Reviewer A:
This paper presents the study of a very timely phenomenon – manifestations of the growing hackerspace movement in Asia. It raises important questions about how hackerspaces figure as intermediaries and sites of translation between knowledge production in academic institutions, policy and citizen engagement. I believe that the chosen sites in Asia are particularly interesting as they draw attention to translocal processes in relation to particular cultural, political and economic processes. As I was super enthusiastic about this project, I found myself somewhat disappointed towards the end as the overall analysis and synthesis across sites and findings fall short. At times the paper feels descriptive and lacks empirical details that would allow for a much richer account. I do believe that this could be addressed by including the stories and voices of members of the hackerspace scene and by better connecting the analysis and empirical data.
Reviewer B:
This is an interesting survey of bio-hacking in Asia and it definitely illustrates developments and activities unfamiliar to a lot of readers. The article could have been more grounded theoretically; the overall argument is unclear.