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 presents an exemplary case study on the complexity of designing community owned internet infrastructure. Bringing together researcher, governmental and community perspectives, reflections on themes of digital sovereignty, participatory design, literacy, and maintenance are interesting and important contributions to the literature and will be valuable to researchers and practitioners alike.\n<\/p>\n We want to thank the authors for an interesting paper and the changes made that have improved its flow although the introduction remains a bit long. The link to transitions to more sustainable futures is now more explicit in the text and the framing regarding the literature sources is less scattered. The case is interesting and the toolkit is now better presented and well described, the reflections and issues introduced will certainly provide interesting insights to readers of the JPP journal.<\/p>\n The authors improved significantly the structure and flow of their argument. This is a very valuable account for some of the most important challenges in peer production action research.<\/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: 3\/3<\/h3>\n
Comprehensiveness: 2\/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