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 In the first place, I would like to thank the authors for this revised version. The submission presents a very interesting case study. The main reason why I have indicated that the article has not significantly changed as a result of the review process is that many of the issues I highlighted in my first review still remain. The theoretical framing, contribution, and extent to which the claims are related to their empirical material are really thin. For example, many theoretical concepts are used without unpacking them, it\u2019s quite unclear how the guidelines relate to their empirical account.<\/p>\n The article presents the case study of the L200, urban space in the city of Zurich where a process of communing is undergoing encompassing both the physical as well as the virtual space. The article offers relevant guidelines that could be reproduced in other contexts for similar initiative.<\/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: 1\/2<\/h3>\n
Academic: 1\/2*<\/h3>\n
Prospective: 0\/2<\/h3>\n
Formalised: 0\/2<\/h3>\n
Language quality: 2\/2*<\/h3>\n
Subjective categories<\/h2>\n
Scope of debate: 2\/2<\/h3>\n
Comprehensiveness: 0\/2*<\/h3>\n
Logical flow: 1\/2*<\/h3>\n
Originality: 1\/2*<\/h3>\n
Review impact: 1\/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
Reviewer B<\/h3>\n