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 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: 1.5/3
Academic*
Article follows conventions of academic research article — e.g. position in literature, cited sources, and claimed contribution: 3/3
Prospective
Article is based on developments that have not yet occurred: 1/3
Formalised
Article is based on formal logic or mathematical technique: 0.5/3
Language quality*
Standard of English expression in article is excellent: 3/3
Subjective categories
Scope of debate
Article addresses an issue which is widely known and debated: 1/3
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]: 3/3
Logical flow*
Ideas are well organised in article: 3/3
Originality*
The argument presented in article is new: 3/3
Review impact
The article has been significantly changed as a result of the review process: 3/3
Commendations
Commendation
Reviewers indicate their appreciation of the article in the form of a 50 word statement.
Reviewer A:
The article Beyond Technological Fundamentalism: Peruvian Hack Labs, “Inter-technological” Futures, and ICT4E in the Andes brings interesting contributions to the compreension of the cultural context that influences the quality of any technological project local implementation. It make a good critic of the limits of the techno-determinism perspective that is the present in most of international corporate educational projects. To present its argument the article focus on the sociocultural and historical background of the theachers intercultural educational activism, in order to show how it influences the different uses of XO.
Reviewer B:
Reviewers indicate their appreciation of the article in the form of a 50 word statement. This paper is of interest to a wide audience. It demonstrates well the manners in which the OLPC in Peru is embedded in a techno-fundamentalist approach and the how hack labs have contested and proposed alternative ways of including technology in education. This article is a good contribution to the scholarship on hackerspaces.
Reviewer C:
The article highlights an important critique of industry and government-led practice in aid and education as “techno-fundamentalist. Using the example of the OLPC introduction in Peru it demonstrates that other, culturally sensitive and inclusive approaches to technology adoption are possible. The topic is highly relevant for the Shared Machines Spaces communities and their practice.