holtzermann17
commented
9 years ago I think it is OK to combine some future work with the case studies, as long as it is not TOO speculative, and it is clearly coming from our assessments. Having removed the workshop section, this works much better.
A Prime Example. The discussion (under "Bridge", p21) of how the computational social system of creators engaging in a workshop could discover new types of problems is interesting, but it is not at all clear how this behaviour (which is implied to be observed in human workshops — this seems feasible, but should probably be referenced) could be computationally operationalised. This reviewer would prefer the thought experiment to constrain itself to what would be possible using known techniques and the serendipity framework, which would better highlight what the framework might enable. References to behaviours that would require significant other (undescribed) innovations make it harder to see what the framework itself contributes. The thought experiment should clearly show what was previously not possible, but now is. The challenges and future work can then describe what more speculative future directions open up as a result. The paper currently combines the two, and its clarity suffers as a result.