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