A brutal but refreshingly blunt description of the article selection "process" at Michigan Law Review, from Letters of Marque:
Consider this: most people who submit to us also submit to the 20 or so journals near us in quality. We are in competition for their work. For a number of good pieces, if we don't get them within a couple of days, we may not get them. (Some other good pieces may languish indefinitely). This means, that if we want to be truly effective, we need to evaluate 40-50 new articles every day. That's 6-7 per article editor.
So what happens?
So we don't read the articles that we get in their entirety. I read abstracts and sometimes the first three pages or so of articles. If I don't find something to like in the first five pages, I usually reject the article. If I don't know what the author's saying within the first five pages, I usually reject the article. If I think that the author is an uninspired writer, I usually reject the article. I hate it.
The whole entry is worth reading. It responds to, among other things, this post by Paul Gowder.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Links to weblogs that reference Thank you, sir. May I have another?: