> I would like to raise the possibility that ope sponsor an online
> journal of marxist economics.
I think this is a good idea which I will support *provided* someone else
(or better yet, a group of listmembers) take responsibility for
organizing the logistics and technical aspects of producing such a
journal.
> By an online journal I mean a web server that would contain
> articles that had been peer reviewed by list members.
Does this reference to "web server" mean a server which would *distribute*
copies of the journal to others with e-mail addresses? Whether that is or
is not what you intended, I think it would be a good idea to post the
journal on one or more WWW sites. I also think that we should be clear
from the outset that this would be a *public* journal that anyone can
read and cite.
> The
> journal articles would allow us to develop arguments in greater
> detail and more carefully than is possible in the rather hurried
> medium of an online list.
> Such online peer review journals already exist in physics
> and are about to start for the life sciences.
Well, we have a tradition of being on the cutting edge in terms of
Internet communication among scholars. This would seem to be a logical
next step which, in my view, in no way prevents us from being able to
continue our list discussions. Indeed, the journal might provide an
opportunity for us to *deepen* those exchanges. Thus, the OPE-L (the list)
and a journal should be viewed as complimentary.
Also, at various times listmembers have referred to unpublished papers
that they would like at some point to publish. Perhaps the online journal
could be the vehicle that turns that desire into a reality.
I have a suggestion and a question.
Suggestion:
Have issues of the journal based around thematic concerns. Thus, each
journal number would address a separate question (e.g. the 6-book-plan).
This was a system used to great advantage by the now defunct journal
_Mehrwert_ published in Germany. Not only would this encourage list
members to write about similar topics, but it would also have the
advantage of being easier to use for classroom instruction. Of course, we
would have to exercise some flexibility here and everyone should be
encouraged to come up with ideas for themes of future issues.
Question:
Why go the traditional pattern of peer review and referees? Can't we rely
on listmembers to exercise good judgment and scholarly practice in the
preparation of contributions?
In solidarity, Jerry