I think there's room for a high-quality discussion paper series of the type
envisaged. I would have two comments:
1. Making the governing decisions by a majority of the whole list is
awkward and possibly infeasible, since the composition of the list changes
rapidly and it's difficult to get everyone's attention even to important
questions. I'd suggest nominating a seven-person editorial board to run the
thing, with the rest of the list as an advisory board, and strict term
limits on the editorial board so that it would turn over regularly.
2. The very strict refereeing deadlines and guidelines seem too demanding
to me. I don't see why one careful reading by a suitable person shouldn't
be enough. As opposed to a journal, the emphasis in a discussion paper
series is on including whatever might be interesting, even if some of it
turns out to be flawed.
Duncan
>Dear all,
>
>There has been a huge silence in response to our report on the online
>journal. I presume most listmembers are not really interested in pursuing
>this avenue. I hope that I am wrong, though, because I still think it is a
>good idea. Alejandro has been very positive about it, which is great - would
>anyone else like to comment on it?
>
>alfredo.
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
alternate: foleyd@newschool.edu
webpage: http://cepa.newschool.edu/~foleyd