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: 1/3
Article proposes a critique of a policy or practice with specific action proposals or suggestions.
Academic: 3/3*
Article follows conventions of academic research article e.g. position in literature, cited sources, and claimed contribution.
Prospective: 0/3
Article is based on developments that have not yet occurred.
Formalised: 2/3
Article is based on formal logic or mathematical technique.
Language quality: 3/3*
Standard of English expression in article is excellent.
Subjective categories
Comprehensiveness: 3/3*
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: 3/3*
Ideas are well organised in article.
Originality: 3/3*
The argument presented in article is new.
Commendations
Reviewer A
The revisions make the article, which was strong to start with, even
better. The content and analysis encourages readers to contemplate
making and hacking in broader contexts, connects the concepts to key
current debates and it help readers see and understand work that is
being done in a part of the world many of us don’t often read about. For
all of these reasons, I think this article should be part of this special
issue.
Reviewer B
This paper presents an engaging exploration of three feminist artistic installations in Latin America and Spain. The author reflects on the resonances between these works and second-wave feminist and women’s health movements originating in the 1970s, as well as postmodern and cyberfeminist movements, to contest the common understanding of ‘making.’
Reviewer C
This is an excellent, well-written article that makes an important contribution to our understanding of feminist (un)hacking based on an analysis of several important art projects in Latin America. The article builds on feminist discussions of identity, the body and technology to interpret these artistic interventions as a means of engaging with issues around hacking, DIY and making in the context of women’s labor and sexuality.