the staff described sounds to me like the (necessary) staff of a scholarly society office, not that of a standalone scholarly journal.
No, the Organization of American Historians (the sponsor) has its own entirely separate office down the street. The organization budget about breaks even every year--there is no "cash cow."
In addition to the Journal of American History there are over 1000 smaller scholarly history journals in the U.S., typically sponsored by academic history departments or historical societies. Of the several dozen i know about, all of them are edited and vetted by paid professionals. Probably many of the smallest ones are local affairs that are indeed operated by volunteers and cater to a local audience.
What's relevant to Wikipedia is that Wiki editors are not allowed to do original research. We are required to base our articles on published reliable secondary sources. In history we do not do very well -- Wikipedia is good at military history, mediocre at political history and poor at social & cultural history. Despite the bitter feelings that are obvious among the Wikipedians here toward academe, that Wikipedia depends upon paid professionals for its material. -- I am referring of course not to the thousands of Wiki articles on video game or TV characters but to the serious material that bears resemblance to the Encyclopedia Britannica. Better yet, compare Wiki with the hundreds of other academic encyclopedias that you can find in university libraries. The quality of content of those paper history encyclopedias, in my professional judgment, is significantly better than Wikipedia.
Richard Jensen _______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
