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<\/b> Comprehensiveness*<\/strong> Logical flow*<\/strong> Originality*<\/strong> Review impact<\/strong> Reviewer A: <\/strong>The article is still towards the ‘long’ side (almost 12,000 words) and it still reads a little bit like a report in some instances, but overall, it has been improved and it now reads more as a journal article.<\/p>\n Reviewer B: <\/strong>The article thoroughly explores WCN\u2019s potential of shifting the power dynamic in the highly concentrated telecoms industry, thus providing a fresh perspective on how decentralization can be achieved. The empirical research the authors have conducted to complement the theoretical foundations of their study does not pass unnoticed.<\/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\/1; yes<\/p>\n
\nArticle follows conventions of academic research article \u2014 e.g. position in literature, cited sources, and claimed contribution: 1\/1; yes<\/p>\n
\nArticle is based on developments that have not yet occurred: 0.5\/1; no<\/p>\n
\nArticle is based on formal logic or mathematical technique: 0\/1; no<\/p>\n
\nStandard of English expression in article is excellent: 1\/1; yes<\/p>\n<\/div>\nSubjective categories<\/h2>\n
\nArticle addresses an issue which is widely known and debated: 0\/1; no<\/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]: 1\/1; yes<\/p>\n
\nIdeas are well organised in article: 0.5\/1; yes<\/p>\n
\nThe argument presented in article is new: 0\/1; yes<\/p>\n
\nThe article has been significantly changed as a result of the review process:1\/1; yes<\/p>\n<\/div>\nCommendations<\/h2>\n