Whatever happened to the 25.000 word philosophy of science paper?

I read a lot of philosophy of science from the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. That's not to say I don't keep up with current trends, it just means that I think in many cases there are interesting and unexplored issues in there.

One thing that stands out from this era in the philosophy of science is format. Put that more correctly: length. A lot of the early philosophy of science was done in 70 - 120 page review papers which  reviewed current literature from the philosophy of science and other areas in significant detail, and which were interventionist in the sense that these papers also contained new insights and new work. I found I quite like this format for several reasons:

1. A paper can be read in an afternoon or so
2. Papers can, and often do, contain the relevant details of the points they're trying to make
3. The argument can be developed in sufficient scope and breadth

One of the striking aspects of more recent philosophy for me is that this format has all but disappeared. Most journals are after contributions at around the 8000 word mark or even less and resist 'series' of articles. I suspect that what would have been a 70-120 page paper in the past now often takes the form of a puffed up book, with another 120 pages or so added to round out the manuscript. That is not a criticism of their authors, but it is a criticism of the publishing environment in which we now operate.

I, for one, would really like to see the older 70 - 120 page format revived. Many key papers in the philosophy of science were written in this form, and I somewhere suspect we've lost something with its disappearance. In the age of the Internet and open access publishing, this also shouldn't be too hard.