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 has been amended slightly to address the review comments, and in that revision more clearly identifies its focus, and clearly problematizes the challenges of p2p technologies within contemporary legal discourses.<\/p>\n Reviewer B: <\/strong>I find the manuscript very interesting and original. It displays a good understanding of the described problem and offers a creative solution to the raised issues. It is well researched, properly organised and attractive for the reader. It could be perceived as the important step in the emerging process that aims at importing some concepts and theories from international law (e.g.: rights of local communities) to private cyber law, for the benefit of both legal fields<\/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: yes; no<\/p>\n
\nArticle follows conventions of academic research article \u2014 e.g. position in literature, cited sources, and claimed contribution: yes; yes<\/p>\n
\nArticle is based on developments that have not yet occurred: yes; no<\/p>\n
\nArticle is based on formal logic or mathematical technique: no; no<\/p>\n
\nStandard of English expression in article is excellent: yes; yes<\/p>\n<\/div>\nSubjective categories<\/h2>\n
\nArticle addresses an issue which is widely known and debated: yes; yes<\/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]: yes\/no; yes<\/p>\n
\nIdeas are well organised in article: yes; yes<\/p>\n
\nThe argument presented in article is new: yes; yes<\/p>\n
\nThe article has been significantly changed as a result of the review process: yes; no<\/p>\n