He thinks they can do better in terms of using the medium:
There is no conceivable advantage to publishing a huge mass of material every three months in an online format. In fact, given the reality of people’s online reading habits, that format undoubtedly makes people less likely to read the journal — they get overwhelmed by the amount of material that is there and wind up reading one article at best. Had the same material trickled out as it became available (i.e., once peer review was completed), odds are that interested readers would’ve read proportionately more articles, including articles not immediately in their area of interest (the first to go when the reader feels overwhelmed).
I’m not sure what he has in mind: The Philosopher’s Magazine already runs a site that updates quite frequently, and thus you’re talking more about an online magazine than a journal. The point of journal articles, even though they might only appear semi-annually, is that you know that there (hopefully!) were the result of a slower development of a line of thought, more so than a blog post, and certainly more than you can do in shorter, more accessible articles.
My idea would be that as more journals go online, we’ll have the best of both worlds: people who post blog items can link to quotes and articles that they like, which all would be publishing at different times. This would help bring attention to articles in a way that’s harder to do now that most journals are basically behind the pay walls of libraries…