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 Review A<\/strong><\/p>\n The article describes the authors criteria for a feminist hackathon. Review B The paper presents useful insights into approaches to re-position \u00a0<\/div>\n<\/div>\n <\/strong><\/p>\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\/2<\/span><\/h3>\n
Academic: 2\/2*<\/span><\/h3>\n
Prospective: 0\/2<\/span><\/h3>\n
Formalised: 0\/2<\/span><\/h3>\n
Language quality: 2\/2*<\/span><\/h3>\n
Subjective categories<\/h2>\n
Comprehensiveness: 2\/2*<\/span><\/h3>\n
Logical flow: 2\/2*<\/span><\/h3>\n
Originality: 2\/2*<\/span><\/h3>\n
Commendations<\/h2>\n
\ndescribe an actual hackathon that took place. Finally, clearly critiques the
\nhackathons success in light of these criteria.\u00a0 While I raised a number of
\nconcerns above, most notably regarding the method around the construction
\nof the tenants of feminist hackathon, and the analysis method, I do think this is
\nan important case study which I would very much like to see published.\u00a0 I feel
\nthe above critiques could be addressed by the authors without the need for
\nanother review cycle, and perhaps just discuss the method issue as an area
\nof future work.\u00a0\u00a0 A feminist critique of hackathons which suggestions for
\nimprovement is something of tremendous importance, and this is a good case
\nstudy.<\/p>\n
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n
\nhackathons, to address their limitations and current critiques and focus
\nmore closely on encouraging social aims. The focus on strategies within the
\ndiscussion were particularly interesting and practical for groups seeking to
\nmake the most of hackathons that productively address complex design
\nchallenges.<\/p>\n