Article proposes a critique of a policy or practice with specific action proposals or suggestions: 1/1; yes
Article follows conventions of academic research article — e.g. position in literature, cited sources, and claimed contribution: 1/1; yes
Article is based on developments that have not yet occurred: 0.5/1; no
Article is based on formal logic or mathematical technique: 0/1; no
Standard of English expression in article is excellent: 1/1; yes
Scope of debate
Article addresses an issue which is widely known and debated: 0/1; no
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]: 1/1; yes
Ideas are well organised in article: 0.5/1; yes
The argument presented in article is new: 0/1; yes
The article has been significantly changed as a result of the review process:1/1; yes
Reviewer A: The article is still towards the ‘long’ side (almost 12,000 words) and it still reads a little bit like a report in some instances, but overall, it has been improved and it now reads more as a journal article.
Reviewer B: The article thoroughly explores WCN’s potential of shifting the power dynamic in the highly concentrated telecoms industry, thus providing a fresh perspective on how decentralization can be achieved. The empirical research the authors have conducted to complement the theoretical foundations of their study does not pass unnoticed.