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 Reviewer A did not return signals.<\/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 \u2014 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 — 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 The revised article links each section more effectively to the case study. The role of women\u2019s knowledge has been expanded and better explained. It has been proofread and edited down. <\/p>\n I recommend this article for publication. It is very rare that the Western hegemonic model of a knowledge commons is being interrogated from an indigenous perspective. I have really enjoyed reading this article. <\/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: 2\/2<\/span><\/h3>\n
Academic: 2\/2*<\/span><\/h3>\n
Prospective: 0.5\/2<\/span><\/h3>\n
Formalised: 0\/2<\/span><\/h3>\n
Language quality: 2\/2*<\/span><\/h3>\n
Subjective categories<\/h2>\n
Scope of debate: 2\/2<\/span><\/h3>\n
Comprehensiveness: 2\/2*<\/span><\/h3>\n
Logical flow: 2\/2*<\/span><\/h3>\n
Originality: 1.5\/2*<\/span><\/h3>\n
Review impact: 2\/2<\/span><\/h3>\n
Commendations<\/h2>\n
Usha Harris<\/h3>\n
Reviewer C<\/h3>\n