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 This is a very timely and well written paper offering rich understanding on the socio-material concerns of FabLabs and the tensions they face in their formation. The positioning and analysis with existing STS theory and literature, particularly on work, knowledge and imaginative objects, is a real strength. <\/p>\n The paper contributes to the contemporary academic discussion on FabLabs by highlighting the role of objects and materiality. It also demonstrates the tension between \u201copen doors\u201d and \u201copen source\u201d in the institutionalization of FabLabs. <\/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<\/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
Scope of debate:1.5\/2<\/span><\/h3>\n
Comprehensiveness: 1.5\/2*<\/span><\/h3>\n
Logical flow: 1\/2*<\/span><\/h3>\n
Originality: 1\/2*<\/span><\/h3>\n
Review impact: 1.5\/2<\/span><\/h3>\n
Commendations<\/h2>\n
Reviewer A<\/h3>\n
Reviewer B<\/h3>\n