Open peer review. Vol.16 N.2

Feminist standpoint on social media sites and internet practices

Reviewer A:

Reviewer A didn't give open reviews.

Recommendation: Revisions Required.

Reviewer B:

Please, comment on the most relevant aspects (positive points and areas to improve) of the reviewed article.

Basically, the article is excellent. This reviewer has made a number of minor edits in the text. While the English is truly excellent, it does not seem to be by a native speaker, as the review is. The edited text is attached. And the first person plural (we) comments have been made third person engendered, as is usually the style in academic articles.

Two minor suggestions:

Egobloggers are often referred to “influencers” and this should be noted at some point.

While the purely binary discussion of stereotypes and other aspects of gender certainly applies to most people, the emergence of non-binary variations (trans, multiple identities, boi’s, grrrls) is now a major part of youth and activist culture generally, so something should be said to acknowledge this, even though it is not the focus of this work.

Would you suggest any changes or make any recommendations to improve the quality of the article?

No substantial comments.

Recommendation: Resend for Review.

The text included important modifications before publication