I would support the point that the Gazette is good and that it is possibly the closest near equivalent to Proceedings. Though on the principle of full disclosure, I must confess that I might have grown more than a bit biased toward the Gazette as I have had the good fortune (or maybe it should be misfortune) to have essentially worked my way through every issue of the Gazette since 1963 to present, in chronological order, for my own research.

I mention this long sequence of reading mainly to point up an issue already alluded to, which is that the quality, mixture, and content of articles is really dependent on who is the editor – over the 40 plus years of the Gazette that I looked at, one can see clearly the shifts in quality, mixture and content, etc, that occur with different editors. An inherent aspect of any journal - academic, independent, whatever - is that the editor, explicitly or implicitly, serves as a gatekeeper. Some editors keep the gate pretty much closed, others have keep it reasonably wide open, and they all have an agenda of some sort (and yes, I edited an academic journal for 13 years, and I am guilty of all of the above to lesser or greater degree in spite of my best of intentions not to be. Sadly we all have implicit bias of some sort, if only as to what we thing is important or even just wanting to vomit when another article on an already overworked topic lands on ones desk).

Army has been recommended to you. As I am only just starting working my way through it, all I can add is ‘so far, so good’ (another line of research; and no, I am not starting in 1963 – doing so once may be excused as ignorance, to do so twice is out ‘n out just plain daft).

I would mention one other issue, as I have done in depth length what you starting to do. I do not think in going through the journals you will necessarily be able to glean how ‘bureaucracies’ respond. I am not sure exactly what you mean by ‘bureaucracies’, but I take it you mean the collective, rigid hierarchy (very loosely defined). If this a reasonable assumption, what the journals (and letters to the editors) are most likely to provide you with is a fairly good idea of the debates around the issue you are interested in. What you mostly get are individuals making their individual arguments (see 'editors' and their foibles above). Nonetheless, as these debates consist of a lot of articles/letter questioning the party line, this does give an ingress to the thinking (responses) of the ‘bureaucracy’. You may be able to do better with the Proceedings, however, due to the prevalence a few years back, for as Ken White ably noted, Admirals, etc were writing articles that were marred by ‘political correctness’ (aka the bureaucracies’ party line). But, to be fair, you will also find an interesting debate related to this in Proceedings a couple of years back (or so) about whether officers can write what they think as opposed to writing in support of the party line. The issue was, as I understand it, that the Navy ‘hierarchy’ was starting to be disturbed by the number of officers who were writing articles that challenged ‘Transformation’ and reportedly was cracking down behind the scenes. Credit where credit is due to the editor(s) of Proceeding for airing this important debate.

Have fun!