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> Commendation<\/strong> Reviewer A:<\/strong> The article provides in depth, ethnographic insights into what constitutes the identities, roles and practices of members in a hackerspace by focusing on their use of tools and their attitude.<\/p>\n Reviewer B:<\/strong> The article is suitable for publishing if minor errors are corrected (e.g. p. 18, Nolan is called \u2018Nathan\u2019). The theme focus of tools and maker identity is appropriate and the primary concepts derived from the data are interesting and telling, especially the adhocism concept.<\/p>\n Reviewer C:<\/strong> The focus in this revision on a maker identity, tools and “futzing” has been sharpened. The concepts it suggests will be generative of future studies. I’m greatly excited by this article’s publishing, as it will be a helpful resource.<\/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: 0\/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: 2\/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: 3\/3<\/p>\n
\nThe argument presented in article is new: 1.5\/3<\/p>\n
\nThe article has been significantly changed as a result of the review process: 2\/3<\/p>\n<\/div>\nCommendations<\/h2>\n
\nReviewers indicate their appreciation of the article in the form of a 50 word statement.<\/p>\n