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 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: 2/3

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: 1.5/3

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

Scope of debate: 2.5/3

Article addresses an issue which is widely known and debated.

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.

Review impact: 0/3

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

The paper offers a welcome and timely discussion of current open source/shared networking practices, a subject that deserved increased attention both in view of current new media practices in the digital culture (and the widening use of the internet (vs. off network) as a public forum for publishing independent media content, information, community activism/projects, etc) as well as political and academic debates/research investigations regarding participatory culture, authorship (copy-left, co-authorship, creative commons-based peer production) and collaboration.

Reviewer B

This paper is an insightful summary of different approaches to artists’ responses to the evolution of the networked world and ubiquitous computing in the last two decades, and stands as an inspiring argument for the relevance of the artist’s role as “the facilitator, the mediator, the commoner of knowledge and experience”.

Reviewer C

The paper introduces a number of artist-inspired projects for user-controlled network infrastructures. These projects serve a dual purpose, as practical infrastructures as well as exemplary conceptual pieces of another Internet that is possible. The revisions improved the contextualization and made the paper more informative and inspiring for artists and non-artists alike.