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<\/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 This article is very good. The author writes, \u201ctechnologists and activists foreclose the possibility of alternatives to concentrations of telecommunications power by inadvertently keeping meanings that emerge in social relations in rural communities at the periphery\u201d; her argument about practice versus thing is subtle, smart, and well-executed. It is important both analytically and practically. Dunbar-Hester 2014 is in text but does not appear in biblio This is an important article for at least three reasons. Firstly, it sheds light on rural community networks in the Global South, academically a blind spot. Secondly, it illuminates how communities on the ground and practitioners relate to CNs. Finally, it builds on an extensive personal engagement with the field.<\/p>\n<\/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<\/h3>\n
Academic: 2\/2*<\/h3>\n
Prospective: 0\/2<\/h3>\n
Formalised: 1\/2<\/h3>\n
Language quality: 1,5\/2*<\/h3>\n
Subjective categories<\/h2>\n
Scope of debate: 2\/2<\/h3>\n
Comprehensiveness: 2\/2*<\/h3>\n
Logical flow: 2\/2*<\/h3>\n
Originality: 2\/2*<\/h3>\n
Review impact: 2\/2<\/h3>\n
Commendations<\/h2>\n
Reviewers indicate their appreciation of the article in the form of a 50 word statement.<\/p>\nReviewer A<\/h3>\n
Before publication it still needs another sweep for typos and cleaning up citations. A non-exhaustive list
(just random ones I noticed):
\u201cThe has been intensified interest in Community Networks (CNs),\u201d (in opening of abstract)
\u201cSince CNs in the Global South are often stimulated and supported by people who do not inhabit [the
local] communities\u201d
\u201cCompared with analysis of CNs in the Global North (e.g. Crabu, et al, 2016). Both academic\u201d
\u201cCNs, these accounts they do not explore the politics,\u201d
Milan & Trere are listed in biblio but Milan is listed in text
Chan 2007 is in biblio but not in text<\/p>\n
I would also expect to see Star & Griesemer cited with regard to the boundary object concept that appears multiple times<\/p>\n<\/p>\nReviewer Stefania Milan<\/h3>\n