Should S&P solicit and publish squibs in semantics and pragmatics? Apart from LI, which occasionally has a semantic squib, and Snippets, which of course feasts on squibs, there does not seem to be a venue for very short articles in our field. So, should we offer such an outlet?
- We would not want to put Snippets out of business, so if there simply aren’t enough potential squibs to go around, S&P shouldn’t get into that particular business.
- We would probably need a separate squibs editor team.
- Given our immediate publication policy, and given that the pagination should go continuously from page 1 of the year to whatever page we reach at the end of the year, squibs will have to appear interspersed among longer articles, rather than in a separate squibs section as in LI.
Comments, considerations, votes? Please advise us.
It would be excellent to have an outlet for squibs that are longer than those accepted by Snippets but shorter and less ambitious than full articles. LI’s Squibs provides a model for this kind of work, but S&P’s would be devoted to meanings. I’d also advocate for less theory and more puzzles/descriptions than LI’s Squibs section generally contains today. So: Snippets but longer. Such pieces would be at home amongst the full-length articles, I think.