The Journal of Peer Production - New perspectives on the implications of peer production for social change New perspectives on the implications of peer production for social change
Signals image
Where you are: Home · Issues · Issue #6: Disruption and the Law · Peer Reviewed Articles · Peer production and changing norms in music practice: An ethnomusicological perspective · Signals

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: no; no

Academic*
Article follows conventions of academic research article — e.g. position in literature, cited sources, and claimed contribution: yes; yes

Prospective
Article is based on developments that have not yet occurred: no; no

Formalised
Article is based on formal logic or mathematical technique: no; no

Language quality*
Standard of English expression in article is excellent: yes; yes

Subjective categories

Scope of debate
Article addresses an issue which is widely known and debated: yes; no

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]: yes (with reservations); yes

Logical flow*
Ideas are well organised in article: yes; yes

Originality*
The argument presented in article is new: yes; yes

Review impact
The article has been significantly changed as a result of the review process: somewhat, yes; yes

Commendations

Reviewer A: While it is a shame that many of the more contentious sections have been omitted in this version of the paper, rather than engaging with sources that support them, the changes made nevertheless make the work less journalistic and more academic, with a stronger focus.

Reviewer B: The article is in sections, covering a range of important developments; in moving through them the reader is able to discern the set of interconnected issues the author describes: mobile internet in the South, music production/distribution apps, and the closed/open archives and the respective relations to publics and market interests.