{"id":7062,"date":"2018-05-13T13:32:22","date_gmt":"2018-05-13T13:32:22","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/peerproduction.net\/editsuite\/?page_id=7062"},"modified":"2018-07-01T14:04:43","modified_gmt":"2018-07-01T14:04:43","slug":"signals","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"http:\/\/peerproduction.net\/editsuite\/issues\/issue-12-makerspaces-and-institutions\/varia-2\/making-or-making-do\/signals\/","title":{"rendered":"Signals (making or making do)"},"content":{"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 publishing an imperfect article 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.<\/p>\n Reviewers indicate their appreciation of the article in the form of a 50 word statement.<\/p>\n The article makes a significant contribution to\u00a0the field of peer production because it situates\u00a0hacking and making\u00a0geographically, economically, politically, materially and historically. The\u00a0five\u00a0cases are examined in a nuanced manner, and points to diverse framing\u00a0contingent to each national\u00a0cultural and socioeconomic context.<\/p>\n A contribution to Global Hacker Studies presenting an eclectic collection of ethnographic snapshots that the authors propose resonate with the idea of \u201cMaking Do\u201d rather than making. While making is associated with Western ideas of empowerment, \u201cMaking Do\u201d is about positioning oneself vis-a-vis limitations in a particular way.<\/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 publishing an imperfect article on authors, rather than on the journal. Please note: Positive signal = 1, negative signal = 0, positive\/negative signal<\/p>\nObjective categories<\/h2>\n
Activist: 0\/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<\/div>\n
Subjective categories<\/h2>\n
Scope of debate: 2\/2<\/span><\/h3>\n
Comprehensiveness: 0\/2*<\/span><\/h3>\n
Logical flow: 2\/2*<\/span><\/h3>\n
Originality: 2\/2*<\/span><\/h3>\n
Review impact: 1.5\/2<\/span><\/h3>\n<\/div>\n
Commendations<\/h2>\n
Reviewer A<\/h3>\n
Reviewer B<\/h3>\n