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 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 \nThis article provides a perspective on building civil society capabilities in an increasingly digital public sphere to counter far-right activism. Its particularly valuable because it combines it combines substantial theoretical perspectives with first hand experiences in the field. <\/p>\n The author has significantly improved the introduction of ideas, connections to relevant literature, and the structure of the article compared to the first version. In doing so, they have made a clear case for the necessity to study the capabilities of digital advocacy organisations like Uplift’s Far Right Observatory.<\/p>\n This article is a very good example of combining theory and practice in documenting a very interesting case study of peer production.<\/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: 3\/3<\/h3>\n
Academic: 3\/3*<\/h3>\n
Prospective: 0\/3<\/h3>\n
Formalised: 0\/3<\/h3>\n
Language quality: 3\/3*<\/h3>\n
Subjective categories<\/h2>\n
Scope of debate: 2\/3<\/h3>\n
Comprehensiveness: 3\/3*<\/h3>\n
Logical flow: 3\/3*<\/h3>\n
Originality: 3\/3*<\/h3>\n
Review impact: 3\/3<\/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
Reviewer C<\/h3>\n