I don't know. It's the first volume. I agree this is more likely to attract submissions from fields where there's more vicious controversy, but give it time. T

I don't know. It's the first volume. I agree this is more likely to attract submissions from fields where there's more vicious controversy, but give it time. There's a good chance it will largely stay within the area of the first volumes' articles, perhaps with a bit more focus in bioethics or something of that sort. I could also forsee some sort of bombshell paper appearing that draws attention to the journal and raises its profile. A reasonable comparison might be whistleblower outlets. They tend not to churn out scandalous intelligence all the time, but rather, have long boring periods punctuated by significant submissions. I hope the journal establishes itself really. I think the main stake it's trying to make is protection of author anonymity, which I imagine could get very contentious at more mainstream outlets, even those in the physical sciences. I could even see a disgruntled editor at a typical journal leaking information about a submission in some belief that everything should be open, despite some consensus among the remaining editorial and publishing staff that anonymity should be preserved. Remember that there's a huge trend now in academic publishing toward radical transparency, in the sense of getting rid of blinded reviews. This is taking the opposite approach it seems, of increasing anonymity of everyone involved. If nothing else, it demonstrates the value of anonymity in academic publishing, and maybe provides a counterperspective to radical openness.