The usual access procedure, I think, is for people to register and then be
able to download articles. If you want to charge for subscriptions, then
you have to control that, but at a minimum it would be a good idea to
collect people's addresses and e-mails as a form of subscription
registration.
It's a nice idea that you could have a journal without peer refereeing, but
I doubt that it will work very well for very long. In my experience the
refereeing process, in addition to its frustrations for authors who get
rejected, is an invaluable part of improving the logic and exposition of
papers, and maybe the most valuable aspect of a journal from a scholarly
point of view. Editing and refereeing, however, are time consuming and
frustrating, too, so the project shouldn't be undertaken lightly.
Cheers,
Duncan
>Re Paul C's [OPE-L:966]:
>
>> 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Also, at various times listmembers have referred to unpublished papers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
Duncan K. Foley
Department of Economics
Graduate Faculty
New School University
65 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10003
(212)-229-5906
messages: (212)-229-5717
fax: (212)-229-5724
e-mail: foleyd@cepa.newschool.edu
webpage: http://cepa.newschool.edu