If particular arguments are novel and well-supported, are they not something that should be published or otherwise disseminated to the broader community of historians?

To be honest, answers here are never going to have the credibility of something published in a peer reviewed academic journal, even if we puff them up by instituting some form of "peer review" here.

They may be very good for the purpose of education, and often are--but that's an entirely different purpose than addressing fellow scholars. Any original idea that makes its way into an answer here would have to be addressed in a completely different way in order for it to be credible and relevant. Also, if you did want to put in the work to write about your original idea in that way, you probably would not want to post it here. You would want to aim for a more professional avenue of publication because it would get wider readership and would be better for you, personally, as a scholar.

/r/Askscience has started a journal, but it is explicitly aimed at laymen. I think it could be worthwhile to do something beyond the Sunday posts to save really great answers for future reading, but it's not ever going to be a credible source like a peer reviewed journal is.

(I answer from a historical linguistics standpoint, but I assume the same is true in the field of history.)

The Day of Reflection post every Sunday does a decent job of collecting high-quality responses.

I don't understand why you'd want to have anything here disseminated to the broader community of historians. Askhistorians is a secondary (or tertiary) source best suited to delivering historical information to the masses. Most bona fide researchers who post here have their own ways of disseminating knowledge and insight if need be.

Our core mission, as we see it, is to promote public understanding of history. We want to not only help laypeople understand history better, but to put discussions that are happening in academia out there in the open, in an accessible format. We want to promote direct interaction between the public and experts. Running a journal isn't something we oppose, but it would be peripheral to this core mission. So we've chosen to focus our resources in improving other areas - like reviewing the book list and expanding our social media presence. This isn't to say AH Quarterly is never going to happen, it just isn't something that's part of our plan in the near future.

In terms of reaching audiences beyond Reddit, this sub produces a podcast and highlights posts on its twitter feed

• Podcast RSS feed: http://askhistorians.libsyn.com/rss

• Podcast on iTunes: https://itunes.apple.com/au/podcast/the-askhistorians-podcast/id812302476 or search iTunes for 'AskHistorians'

• Twitter: @askhistorians https://twitter.com/askhistorians

That idea makes me cringe. I love this subreddit, but it certainly doesn't need even more puffed-up pseudo-legitimacy.

While a lovely sentiment, there's a few problems with the idea in the community of Historians that may be different with Scientists.

First off, most of the submissions here, even the really great ones, lack a lot of what makes a great article fit for peer-review. They may have a list of sources at the end, but there are no formal citations, historiography, or primary research. Now you don't have to have primary research in an article, but if not you better be doing something really interesting.

So lets say someone did all the work it takes to make a reputable article for a journal. That is weeks if not months of work. The fact that academics take the time to provide the great answers here is amazing in the first place. Then you have the peer-review process. To be truly peer-reviewed you need to have reputable professionals in the same field as the article read it for authenticity and credibility. That is months of fact checking work as well. Ask Historians has one or two historians per specialization, peer reviewed Journals have the whole world of historians to recruit and pay people.

Then there is the problem that if you write something for one journal it should not be published in another. If I put the work into an article I'm not going to submit it to the Reddit journal if there was any chance it would be actually be published. And if I didn't think it could be published why would I spend my time on it in the first place? Then if I'm a real professional do I want my name attached to anything less than my finest work? Especially if the Reddit journal allows, through a lack of effort, plagiarized or erroneous articles to slip through, then your name is associated with it if you volunteer as an editor.

I'd love to subscribe if so. /r/askscience has announced that they will publish journals, so I definitely think we could!

I'm not sure whether this would really work from a research point of view for many of the reasons pointed out in others posts, but what would be really nice is if the general tone of the posts here would become less stiff and haughty. Most historians I know don't talk his way in speech or in writing - certainly not in the journals I read - and it makes the place seem intimidating. I often get the impression that people who are not themselves involved in research and are posting general enquiries feel the need to put on this weird antiquated persona to ask questions and seem to tread on eggshells for fear of being found out, or something.

I've no idea how this could be changed and it might be inevitable I guess (though it's definitely not like this all the time, just enough of the time to make me feel it's a bit of a shame).