Signals are an important part of the CSPP 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 Article proposes a critique of a policy or practice with specific action proposals or suggestions.<\/p>\n Article follows conventions of academic research article \u00ad\u00ad e.g. position in literature, cited sources, and claimed contribution.<\/p>\n Article is based on developments that have not yet occurred.<\/p>\n Article is based on formal logic or mathematical technique.<\/p>\n Standard of English expression in article is excellent.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n Most related sources are mentioned in article [this is an invitation to careful selection rather than a demonstration of prowess in citation collection \u00ad\u00ad i.e. apt and representative choices made in source citations].<\/p>\n Ideas are well organised in article.<\/p>\n The argument presented in article is new.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n <\/p>\n Review A<\/strong><\/p>\n The author explains the rise of feminist hackerspaces through a rich history of collectives that applied feminist theory in a variety of fields in order to gain impact in predominantly male cultures. Through insights from workshops this brilliantly structured paper makes a significant contribution to the debate on feminist hacking and its oscillation between feminist ideals and practices.<\/p>\n Review B The project described here aims to productively bring questions from feminist design philosophies to feminist hackerspaces. Drawing on the concept of “infrastructural inversions” in staging design workshops in these spaces, the research has the potential to expose and theorize tensions inherent to the practice of design from a feminist perspective.<\/p>\n Review C The authors have demonstrated the need to create complex discussions of what constitutes feminist design discourses within sociotechnical contexts. The authors\u2019 work also seeks to problematize seemingly monolithic conceptual categories such as feminism, gender, and equality; their research asks difficult questions about how design practices might actually become disruptors of these classifications within conventional STS feminist scholarly discussions. This paper raises important queries about how STS feminist discourses might be reductive in their definitions of feminist design practices when applied to physical sociotechnical environments such as maker spaces, and how design practices might actually confront limitations within feminist notions of technology construction, contexts of use, and gendered categories for artifacts as well. Furthermore, the authors seek to dismantle the \u2018black box\u2019 view of technology as masculinist culture; they confront infrastructural instabilities within feminist design practices as yet another way to make intersectionalist and diverse perspectives within computing cultures as visible, reflexive, and contextually changing. Finally, the authors apply sociomaterialist contexts to their discussions of conceptual and pragmatic tensions between feminist maker values and traditional design practices; in particular their historiographical analysis of participatory design as an explicitly feminist design method continues to emphasize the relevance of the difficult questions they scrutinize, as the feminist maker ethos is not only an emergent theme within HCI, STS, and even Ubicomp, but one that requires us to recognize and acknowledge that diverse and value sensitive design practices within feminist STS and feminist design interventions are not monolithic, and will continue to evolve and adapt with the increased presence of more diverse populations within all computing cultures and sociotechnical environments, including, but not only, in maker and hacker spaces.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Signals are an important part of the CSPP 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
Activist: 2\/3<\/span><\/h3>\n
Academic: 3\/3*<\/span><\/h3>\n
Prospective: 0\/3<\/span><\/h3>\n
Formalised: 1\/3<\/span><\/h3>\n
Language quality: 3\/3*<\/span><\/h3>\n
Subjective categories<\/h2>\n
Comprehensiveness: 3\/3*<\/span><\/h3>\n
Logical flow: 3\/3*<\/span><\/h3>\n
Originality: 2\/3*<\/span><\/h3>\n
Commendations<\/h2>\n
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n