Article proposes a critique of a policy or practice with specific action proposals or suggestions.
Article follows conventions of academic research article e.g. position in literature, cited sources, and claimed contribution.
Article is based on developments that have not yet occurred.
Article is based on formal logic or mathematical technique.
Language quality: 3/3*
Standard of English expression in article is excellent.
Scope of debate: 1,5/3
Article addresses an issue which is widely known and debated.
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.
The argument presented in article is new.
Review impact: 3/3
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.
Recommendation is to accept the paper, which has been substantially revised by the author. Though the numbering of the different sections need to be harmonized and clarified, the article presents a better flow and structure. Arguments and use of various concepts – especially notions of privacy and transparency – are much more precise. A minor check for spelling and grammar is required however.
The paper provides a high-level overview on the pros and cons of centralized and decentralized communication technologies and platforms in terms of their inherent abilities to protect user data. Its main contribution is to introduce uninitiated readers to current privacy-related debates happening within the communities that develop decentralized networking applications such as blockchain-based crypto-currencies. The authors improved the initial draft based on my corrections.
Transparency and privacy are initially described as polarized facets of decentralized architectures, then counter-arguments and examples defeat this characterization. Given that privacy and transparency are said to be in tension, yet not, the reader is left wondering “So what?” More significantly, the article attempts to derive social facts from technological ones, a troubling methodological approach. There are factual inaccuracies, unsubstantiated claims, and assumptions. The article is well written, and topical.