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: 0/2
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: 0/2
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: 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: 2/2*
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.
Commendations
Reviewers indicate their appreciation of the article in the form of a 50 word statement.
Reviewer A
I definitely recommend this article for publication. Community networks are an important topic on which not enough has been written yet. While there is a growing number of academic articles written by activists and technologists, a technological perspective is prevalent in those papers. This paper, however, uses an interdisciplinary approach, which I strongly support as the most adequate to the subject matter.
Reviewer B
TBA
Reviewer C
The authors took into account the peer review suggestions. The paper reads very well without reducing complexity, ideas are well organised, sources are appropriate to exemplify the original argument: a successful collaboration between STS, computer engineering and law, demonstrating the subversive potential of CNs and contributing to the definition of ‘alternative’ infrastructures.