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>This article provides an extremely interesting analysis of the sharing practices of Thingiverse users. It has great relevance for a large set of emerging disputes, tensions, and evolving norms that surround the sharing of 3D printing designs. Overall, the article makes an important contribution in exploring the complexities of the highly contextually-dependent management of IP in 3D printing.<\/p>\n Reviewer B: <\/strong>The article provides an insightful introduction into the controversial debate around IP norms and practitioner culture with the help of a highly relevant case study. The descriptive data analysis offers plenty of insights and references for further debates and research projects.<\/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: no; no but in a broader context the findings could have implications on copyright policies and practices.<\/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: no; 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; depends on what is meant with \u201cwidely known\u201d – for a general public, no –\u00a0 for the tech savvy Western financially richer social class, 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; 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; yes<\/p>\n