I'm thinking of starting two new blogs. Rather than just jumping in and creating them, I thought I would turn to the folks here at PEA Soup to get some feedback. I am interested, first, in feedback on whether these blogs are good ideas. This includes both the question of whether there are independent reasons to (not) have such blogs as well as the question of whether people would actually read and/or contribute to these blogs (i.e., whether I would be wasting my time creating them). Assuming one or both of these blogs is a good idea, I'm also looking for more specific feedback concerning how they should be set up.
The Venue Poll
I have noticed that some philosophers have a store of knowledge about journals that aids them in deciding where to send the things they write, and in what order (assuming it doesn't get into the first one). I, on the other hand, am one of those philosophers who not only lack this knowledge, but don't even really have a sense of how people (especially ones who are relatively young and haven't published much) acquire it. Luckily for me, I also get the sense that the people who have this knowledge sometimes enjoy sharing it with others.
So, the basic idea is this: People send me abstracts (say ~500 words) and keywords for papers they are working on. At some regular interval (1 abstract every 4 days? 2 abstracts once per week?) I would post abstracts/keywords that have been sent to me (they can be anonymous if the author prefers). Then people can go at it in the comments section discussing what journals the paper best fits, what order to send in, etc. (I'm undecided on whether I would moderate discussion to try to keep it on track, since there are other forums for discussing journal issues, or let it be more free form.) The hope, obviously, is that this would both help the authors of the particular submissions as well as keep people more generally informed on how their colleagues think about the journal submission process, what journals are "hot" in what areas, etc.
What do people think? Would you send in abstracts to be posted on such a blog? Would you be inclined to participate in the suggestion process?
Whenever I am at a conference, I seem to end up having at least one conversation that involves telling horror stories about journal submissions. Typically, this involves some combination of laughter and dismay at the apparent lack of accountability for referees. It occurs to me that a blog (or forum, or wiki) might provide both more laughter and more accountability, at least to an extent. The idea is for a blog where people can (anonymously?) submit stories about referee experiences and even (perhaps, and presumably anonymously) excerpts from referee comments. This might (a) be fun to read (in that watching a car crash sort of way); (b) hopefully remind people that they're not the only ones dealing with such things; and (c) over time increase awareness about which journals are doing particularly good or bad jobs of maintaining a reasonably high level of referree quality.
I suspect that this idea has more obvious problems than the first, including, perhaps, worries people might have about publishing the referee comments they get online. I'm really not sure what to think about this (hence this post). So, would people find this enjoyable/cathartic/helpful? Is it naive to think it has potential for positive impact? This is also a case where I'm particularly interested in suggestions as to the format (assuming it should exist at all).