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 Article addresses an issue which is widely known and debated.<\/p>\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 The article has been significantly changed as a result of the review process.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n Reviewers indicate their appreciation of the article in the form of a 50 word statement.<\/p>\n A review of the expectations and plans for a mesh network from the perspective of its creators. Explores some paradoxes of expectation and reality in relation to privacy and security, as well as the persistence of visions of distributed internet alternatives. Policy and practice recommendations are provided in the conclusion.<\/p>\n TBA<\/p>\n A qualitative study of a Montreal-based mesh network, positioned in the socio-political context as an alternative to commercial internet provision. The authors, themselves participants, report on their peers\u2019 goals and the challenges faced by the initiative. The article has been significantly revised since the initial version.<\/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: 1\/2<\/h3>\n
Academic: 2\/2*<\/h3>\n
Prospective: 0\/2<\/h3>\n
Formalised: 0\/2<\/h3>\n
Language quality: 2\/2*<\/h3>\n
Subjective categories<\/h2>\n
Scope of debate: 1.5\/2<\/h3>\n
Comprehensiveness: 2\/2*<\/h3>\n
Logical flow: 2\/2*<\/h3>\n
Originality: 0.5\/2*<\/h3>\n
Review impact: 2\/2<\/h3>\n
Commendations<\/h2>\n
Reviewer A<\/h3>\n
Reviewer B<\/h3>\n
Reviewer C<\/h3>\n