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?
Some considerations:
- 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.
S&P: Editors' Blog 
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.