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> Commendations<\/strong><\/p>\n Reviewer A:<\/strong> What is interesting about the paper is that it explores in a mostly descriptive fashion the existence of barriers to knowledge sharing between FabLabs. Thereby it offers a first, quick and eclectic view of how collaboration in projects connecting FabLabs worldwide develops, highlighting the role of documentation and \u2013 in a mostly speculative fashion \u2013 tacit knowledge.<\/p>\n Reviewer B:<\/strong> The article spells out the mission of Fab Labs and other Shared Machine Shops to feed in and out of a global knowledge commons. Based on an empirical survey it shows the limited nature of current practices and identifies barriers for developing it. Instructive reading for anybody who identifies with such goals.<\/p>\n Reviewer C:<\/strong> A helpful study of interviews with Fab Lab users\u2019 involved in knowledge sharing between workshops. Useful issues about documentation and social media are identified. Critical challenges and interesting possibilities for greater sharing between FabLabs point to areas for further practical and research development.<\/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: 2\/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: 1\/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: 3\/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: 3\/3<\/p>\n
\nThe article has been significantly changed as a result of the review process: 3\/3<\/p>\n<\/div>\nCommendations<\/h2>\n