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 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

Article proposes a critique of a policy or practice with specific action proposals or suggestions: yes

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

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

Article is based on formal logic or mathematical technique: no

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

Subjective categories

Scope of debate
Article addresses an issue which is widely known and debated: yes

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

Logical flow*
Ideas are well organised in article: yes

The argument presented in article is new: yes

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


Reviewer A: This article introduces a new theoretical framework of an ‘action landscape’ to help understand the social/legal/political regulatory potentialities for additive manufacturing. It builds on similar frameworks (Lessig etc.) and historical errors of technology regulation to argue specific policy goals in the additive manufacturing context. Doing so through the case study of creating weapons, provides a clear example of the consequences for both IP and society.

Reviewer B: Generally, the authors have answered the queries, which is good. However, they still over-use the royal ‘we’ in the paper and don’t really deal with Obama’s position on 3d printing.