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 introduces a new theoretical framework of an \u2018action landscape\u2019 to help understand the social\/legal\/political regulatory potentialities for additive manufacturing. It builds on similar frameworks (Lessig etc.) and historical errors of technology regulation to argue specific policy goals in the additive manufacturing context. Doing so through the case study of creating weapons, provides a clear example of the consequences for both IP and society.<\/p>\n Reviewer B: <\/strong>Generally, the authors have answered the queries, which is good. However, they still over-use the royal \u2018we\u2019 in the paper and don\u2019t really deal with Obama\u2019s position on 3d printing.<\/p>\n <\/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<\/p>\n
\nArticle follows conventions of academic research article \u2014 e.g. position in literature, cited sources, and claimed contribution: yes<\/p>\n
\nArticle is based on developments that have not yet occurred: no<\/p>\n
\nArticle is based on formal logic or mathematical technique: no<\/p>\n
\nStandard of English expression in article is excellent: yes<\/p>\n<\/div>\nSubjective categories<\/h2>\n
\nArticle addresses an issue which is widely known and debated: 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<\/p>\n
\nIdeas are well organised in article: yes<\/p>\n
\nThe argument presented in article is new: yes<\/p>\n
\nThe article has been significantly changed as a result of the review process: somewhat, yes<\/p>\n<\/div>\nCommendations<\/h2>\n