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 (ICT, Open Government and Civil Society) image

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: 1/2*

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

Academic: 2/2

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: 2/2

Article addresses an issue which is widely known and debated.

Comprehensiveness: 2/2*

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: 2/2*

The argument presented in article is new.

Review impact: 2/2

The article has been significantly changed as a result of the review process.


Reviewers indicate their appreciation of the article in the form of a 50 word statement.

Reviewer A

This is an article rich in concepts and examples but the reader fails to see the stake of this effort. Although the objective of the analysis on the interrelations between ICTs, governance and civil society is valid and interesting, the actual position of the paper seems to adopt a high level description of these interrelations depriving the reader of a more bottom up approach on the issue.

Reviewer B

The article at hand addresses an important issue of open government, transparency and public accountability being not a technological, but a political issue, which is often neglected in the discussion. The authors also address the important issue of ownership of infrastructure and systems for open government and smart cities, which allows, in its current state, for corporate actors to amass data on individuals. The authors propose a set of policy actions to take in order to address the issues.