If your desk looks like mine, you have a stack of journals you haven't had time even to examine, let alone read. Added to this are the e-mails you receive every day from a host of online services, universities, think tanks, interest groups, and colleagues telling you about some interesting article, essay, or book. So, we're all subject to a paper and electronic blizzard—an information overload.

Why then is this Association launching a new journal? And how can we—its editors, Charlie Kolstad, Carlo Carraro, and myself—credibly claim that this is a journal you will actually want to read?

  A very different type of journal:

Simply stated, the new Review of Environmental Economics and Policy is intended to fill the very significant gap that now exists between the popular press and scholarly environmental and resource economics journals. As we all know, environmental and resource economics has become increasingly specialized and increasingly technical. At the other extreme, the popular press rarely provides a welcoming home for lengthy discussions about academic research and its implications. So, the Review seeks to fill this gap between the popular press and scholarly journals.

Our ambitious goal is that the Review will come to be both well regarded and well read by its targeted audience—economists and others in academia, government, the private sector, and the advocacy world who are interested in environmental and resource policy. We've assembled an exceptional international Editorial Board, and in order to maintain the highest standards, the Review—which is published by Oxford University Press—will appear only twice per year. And the high quality of writing to which we aspire will be facilitated by the key role played by our Managing Editor, Suzanne Leonard.

Articles in the Review are broadly accessible, and rather than focusing on technical and methodological aspects of research, let alone on specific analytical models, articles in the Review will tend to focus on the broad lessons that can be learned—for environmental and resource economics or for public policy—from broader lines of research.

  Why the Review does not encourage unsolicited manuscripts:

I want to explain that articles published by the Review are commissioned by the Editors, but are also subject to anonymous peer review. So, the submission of unsolicited manuscripts is not encouraged. On the other hand, we very much welcome proposals for articles in the form of brief outlines. Why? Because we believe it would be a mistake for anyone to write a paper for the Review without there being a high probability ex ante of publication. And that's because the Review's unique style and accessibility requirements mean that a manuscript that would be appropriate and acceptable for a conventional economics journal would probably not be appropriate for the Review, and vice-versa. So, our editorial policy is intended to provide readers with the best possible set of articles, while managing risk for potential authors.

  In the first issue:

The inaugural issue of the Review includes: a remarkable essay by Bob Pindyck on "Uncertainty in Environmental Economics; a broad-ranging article by Bill Nordhaus on "Alternative Approaches to Slowing Global Warming;" a beautiful essay by Geoff Heal, titled, "A Celebration of Environmental and Resource Economics." and a Symposium of three articles on the European Emissions Trading Scheme—Denny Ellerman and Barbara Buchner on the allocation and early results; Frank Convery and Luke Redmond on price developments, and Billy Pizer, Wally Oates, and Joe Kruger on lessons for global policy. Also, each and every issue of the Review includes two regular features: Policy Monitor, edited by Maureen Cropper; and Reflections on the Literature, by Kerry Smith.

  How we measure success:

Finally, I want to emphasize that the ultimate success of this journal will not be measured simply by citation counts or circulation numbers, but by whether the journal is actually read and is hence of real value. In the meantime, we—the editors, Charlie, Carlo, and myself—will welcome any and all suggestions about how the Review can best serve your needs.