Article proposes a critique of a policy or practice with specific action proposals or suggestions: –/2
Article follows conventions of academic research article — e.g. position in literature, cited sources, and claimed contribution: 2/2
Article is based on developments that have not yet occurred: –/2
Article is based on formal logic or mathematical technique: –/2
Standard of English expression in article is excellent: 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]: 1,5/2
Ideas are well organised in article: 2/2
The argument presented in article is new: 1,5/2
The article has been significantly changed as a result of the review process: –/2
This article (a) replaces FLOSS within a historical tradition of participatory politics and production and (b) applies an interesting definition of collaborative platforms, previously seen in the “Birds of a Feather” article, to FLOSS. The authors took on some reviewer suggestions, such as examining the different analytical categories rather than each project separately, but – perhaps unavoidably given the breadth of this topic and the space constraints – did not account for issues such as the protection against injustice when no formal roles exist. The article represents an important first step towards a systematic understanding of the factors leading to collaborative production development.
The comparison between FOSS and the literature on “industrial democracy” is both unusual and highly relevant. The article contributes to the development of more precise, analytical distinctions that can be helpful for distinguishing between the degrees of autonomy in different FOSS projects. It is an important paper.