That is a formula that too often in the past produces mandarin classes telling the rest of the world what to think. Fifth, with our journals, the review only begins the conversation. We have guaranteed right of reply to authors and published many. This has taught us what we did not specially want to know but perhaps already did, that few scholars respond with grace and high-mindedness to a bad book review, but it also means that reviewers write in a different tone, knowing that their censures are themselves open to censure. Sixth, we have paid close attention very recently and will continue to study the behavior of those readers who come to consult our archives.
Conclusions can only be preliminary but one is tantalizing.
We are a general interest book review journal, covering many topics in the broad chronological regions of our interests. We noticed, for example, a period when there was a particular run on any and all of our items having to do with issues of gender and sexuality in antiquity. We have no measure of the ideological or scholarly affiliation of our readers, but we make some surmises and imagine people who would not pause to leaf through five years run of a general interest journal in search of two or three items per issue, but who quite happily ask a couple of questions of a WAIS-index and get, with instant efficiency, just the items most likely to suit their interests. This reduces the need for specialized journals precisely because one large umbrella can function as a specialized journal for those who want it. The theoretical and practical implications of this insight, if valid, are far from obvious but deserve exploration.