I've been thrilled by the initial response to Jotwell. Traffic well exceeded my expectations, which is only fair as the initial articles are great, and a large number of friends and strangers have sent me incredibly kind email.
Of all the notes I got, this one from Prof. Bernard Hibbitts of U. Pittsburgh, the creator of JURIST, is my favorite because it not only nicely summarizes a large part of what I am hoping Jotwell will do, but also goes beyond my wilder dreams. Prof. Hibbitts (quoted with permission) wrote,
[T]his is a really great initiative which has tremendous potential to reshape the scholarly publishing process in law, since your focus is much more on what is said than where it is said. You have, in a sense, (re)invented the “law review”, recasting it in the literal/movie sense of the term, and the consequences of this for the traditional players and hierarchy could be enormous, as JOTWELL could end up leapfrogging and superseding them entirely in multiple ways (authoritativeness, timeliness, etc.). Going further, it may not be too much to suggest that you may finally have split the scholarly atom, dividing assessment from placement and unleashing untold intellectual energies and possibilities in the process.
I can only wish.
Meanwhile, we have a new article by Donna Coker up at Jotwell, and two more new pieces in other sections scheduled for next week. Have a look.
Have you considered inviting any of the moderators of “Credit Slips dot org” (your comment spam filter wouldn’t let me post the domain name) to contribute articles on credit and bankruptcy? Hot topics at the moment, and I think they would be a good fit.
In general, I’ve tried to avoid having people heavily invested in other blogs as section editors. And the section editors, not me, pick the contributing editors.