To answer some specific points:
I like WordPress. I run several installs of it. If you want to do this, actually talk to us (Andrew, Pete, Phil, me).
The SOTCW doesn't currently have permission to do that, so you'd need to get permission from each contributor. That's not a small job - I did it for one Journal (53). It was a pain, and I didn't manage to contact a couple of the authors, so a few articles aren't in the back issue PDF.
What do you mean by a "leaky paywall", and how would you set it up?Seret wrote: ↑Fri Mar 23, 2018 5:13 pmSet up a "leaky paywall" for it. This would allow search engines to index the content so that people searching for things like "spearhead scenario" would find our content, which presently they don't. At the moment the SOTCW is almost invisible.
You could set it up so that visitors had whatever level of free access to the archive you liked. Not at all, one article, whatever
I'm not wholly against the idea, but I suspect you've underestimated the work involved in securing permission to put articles on the website. The other point I'd make, though, is that some people don't bother sending stuff to the Journal because they can simply put it on their own blog. Do you think your idea would change that? If so, why/how?Seret wrote: ↑Fri Mar 23, 2018 5:13 pmMembers would be authors in the CMS, they could submit reviews or articles straight into it, and then the editor(s) could review, edit and schedule the posts for publication at whatever rate match the number of submissions
The result would be that the archives of the Journal would be visible to everybody on the internet and search engines, but to actually read them folks would have to join the society. Membership would be a small fee for "consumers" and free for "producers".
Setting up that kind of site wouldn't be hard, like I said, the majority of the work would be in transfering the archives over to a web format. Running costs would be negligible, and workload for the editor(s) would be reduced, and they'd no longer be working to deadlines. Publication of new content could be paced to match the rate it came in at. We'd have a platform to allow collaboration, rather than the poor old editor beavering away in isolation.