Signals are an important part of the CSPP 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: 2/2*
Article proposes a critique of a policy or practice with specific action proposals or suggestions.
Academic: 1/2
Article follows conventions of academic research article e.g. position in literature, cited sources, and claimed contribution.
Prospective: 1/2
Article is based on developments that have not yet occurred.
Formalised: 0/2
Article is based on formal logic or mathematical technique.
Language quality: 2/2*
Standard of English expression in article is excellent.
Subjective categories
Scope of debate: 0/2
Article addresses an issue which is widely known and debated.
Comprehensiveness: 1/2*
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].
Logical flow: 1/2*
Ideas are well organised in article.
Originality: 0/2*
The argument presented in article is new.
Review impact: 0/2
The article has been significantly changed as a result of the review process.
Commendations
Reviewers indicate their appreciation of the article in the form of a 50 word statement.
Reviewer A
The article advocates peer-to-peer, open design solutions for transforming patent-based knowledge economies to “social knowledge economies”. The basis of the argument is introductory analysis of peer-to-peer proposals, patent practices and two case studies. The proposal is dangerously close to the far-fetched plans of Californian liberals.
Reviewer B
Industrial policy recommendations that are based on open source is a highly intriguing idea and currently not exactly part of any industrial policy. The value and impact of the paper however could be substantially higher if it was supported by stronger evidence and based on a broader body of literature.