Signals are an important part of the JOPP 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.<\/p>\n
Please note:<\/strong><\/p>\n Positive signal = 1, negative signal = 0, positive\/negative signal = 0.5<\/p>\n Only signals marked with a “*” are used to calculate the JoPP Signal (on the peer reviewed paper pages).<\/p>\n Activist<\/strong> Academic*<\/strong> Prospective<\/strong> Formalised<\/strong> Language quality*<\/strong> Scope of debate<\/strong> Comprehensiveness*<\/strong> Logical flow*<\/strong> Originality*<\/strong> Review impact<\/strong> Reviewer A:<\/strong> The author investigates an important and interesting precursor of current shared machine shops: Technology Networks in London. It demonstrates that both should be understood in the context of their interaction with larger political\/economic\/social forces. The article is interesting for both scholars and activists since it offers historical experience.<\/p>\n Reviewer B:<\/strong> This article points out that the emergence of shared machine shops is not a historically unique development. It traces the history, development and failing of Technology Networks in Greater London in the mid-1980s. It historically reflects their political stance against emergent neoliberalism.<\/p>\n Reviewer C:<\/strong> This very informative article was improved considerably during the revision and is now ready to become published. Thank you very much for the opportunity to review it, I gained a lot of useful insights.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Signals are an important part of the JOPP 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<\/p>\nObjective categories<\/h2>\n
\nArticle proposes a critique of a policy or practice with specific action proposals or suggestions: 1\/3<\/p>\n
\nArticle follows conventions of academic research article \u2014 e.g. position in literature, cited sources, and claimed contribution: 3\/3<\/p>\n
\nArticle is based on developments that have not yet occurred: 0\/3<\/p>\n
\nArticle is based on formal logic or mathematical technique: 0\/3<\/p>\n
\nStandard of English expression in article is excellent: 3\/3<\/p>\n<\/div>\nSubjective categories<\/h2>\n
\nArticle addresses an issue which is widely known and debated: 0.5\/3<\/p>\n
\nMost 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]: 3\/3<\/p>\n
\nIdeas are well organised in article: 2\/3<\/p>\n
\nThe argument presented in article is new: 2.5\/3<\/p>\n
\nThe article has been significantly changed as a result of the review process: 2\/3<\/p>\n<\/div>\nCommendations<\/h2>\n