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 My suggestion of separating the introduction to the article and a discussion of the main concept + relevant literature has been taken into account, making things easier on the reader as a result. The visual rendering is also there although I was hoping for a more articulate one, summarizing the various examples cited at the different layers. Other suggestions have not been considered, for example to make it clearer, at the end, what are the conclusions of the scholars and the \u2018call to arms\u2019 of the activist. The title is still very much a militant one. Overall, I will be happy to see this article published.<\/p>\n Reviewer B was not able to complete the signaling process.<\/p>\n This article offers and engaging and critical analysis of how the corporate and commercial models limit the potentials of the Internet and digital communication technologies. The authors mobilise the concept of the digital craftsperson to explore pathways for creating alternatives.<\/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: 1,5\/2<\/h3>\n
Academic: 2\/2*<\/h3>\n
Prospective: 1\/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: 2\/2*<\/h3>\n
Review impact: 1\/2<\/h3>\n
Commendations<\/h2>\n
Reviewer A<\/h3>\n
Reviewer B<\/h3>\n
Reviewer C<\/h3>\n