Call me a dinosaur, but I much prefer Corel Word Perfect to Microsoft Word. I'm delighted to know that there's at least one other fan out there!

Three questions on law review submissions that might generate some useful discussion:

1. If a law professor sends out the "first wave" of manuscripts in August, what is the timing of the "second wave"? Perhaps rephrased, when might it be too late to send out the "second wave"? No later than mid-September? How about mid-October?

2. When submitting a manuscript, does it help/hurt the author's placement chances if the package includes the author's c.v. (at least a list of published works)? Does doing so reek of arrogance? Or might student editors find the info useful in any due diligence they might perform?

3. All things being equal, and assuming that the author is not under any pressure for a timely placement, is an article more likely to find a home during the fall submission period, or the spring submission period?

Hey, Tim. Maybe others have thoughts on #1 and #3, although my general impression is that people who send out in August think it's better, and people who send out in March think it's better! Sort of like WP/Word. It would be nice to have actual data of March slots available v. August slots available.

As to #2, I have a post around here somewhere on that, but Expresso specifically says that a c.v. is the most important document you can send with your article. (underlined and in bold!!) They seem to have done a survey, and (like Trident) four out of five law review editors prefer c.v. inclusion!!

Personally, I wonder about that 5th law review editor who doesn't prefer the CV. I might be concerned as an author that the CV will play a larger role than I would like in the decision-making process, but why wouldn't you want it as an editor?

I guess my question is how the CV could possibly harm the author's chances for placement? An editor who wants this information can probably find most of it by googling, no?

In response to Joshua's question concerning how a C.V. might harm placement, consider these possible trains of thought:

(1) Hmmm, the author has a history of solid middle-tier placement, but no top 30's, so let's not be the first. (2) Oh, she clerked for Judge so-and-so, a perceived [fill in the blank], so let's not give her an offer. (3) The author has a decent pedigree, but she didn't graduate from Harvard, Yale, blah, blah, blah, so no offer from us.

And on and on and on. In effect, one or more items on the c.v. might play into the reader's prejudices.

Oh for the day of blind reviews!

You might be right. I always just imagined that the inquiring mind of a law review editor hell bent on finding out an author's history of placement, clerkships, pedigree, etc., could do so at minimal cost without a CV. Combine that with the chance that something in the CV might catch the reader's eye in favorable way, and why not? But I can see it working against an author as well.