Conglomerate Blog: Business, Law, Economics & Society

Redyip has returned, and by virtue of my new role as Associate Dean for Faculty Development, I'm more interested than usual in the annual springtime flood of submissions to the newly minted law review editorial boards (although I do have an article out this cycle. And it's totally awesome).

The problem is one of volume: ExpressO and Scholastica have lowered the cost of submission to each additional journal to mere dollars, giving an author the incentive to submit to dozens and dozens of journals. The fall cycle is diminished, and so more and more submissions funnel into the weeks of February and March. For years this system limped along mostly on expedites, where authors submitted to large numbers of journals. Once an author received an offer from a journal, she would expedite up, and law reviews in the tier above the offering school would use those expedites as a screening mechanism. But anecdotal reports suggest that the sheer volume of articles may be overwhelming students, and expedited articles are going unread.

The typical law prof response is to tut-tut, and murmur approvingly about peer reviewed journals. But a peer review journal means exclusive submissions, the torture of revise and resubmit, and a whole lot of work from the peers (i.e., us). I think most professors, when alone with their thoughts in the dark of night, would admit that they like the ability to submit simultaneously, and the closure of knowing where their piece will land come April. So what to do?

ExpressO's now offers two limited forms of relief to student editors: First, it allows law reviews to set a maximum number of simultaneous requests for expedite. Second, it allows law reviews to select "peers" from which to receive expedites.

Here's a bolder solution: what if authors could credibly commit that they were only offering to 10-20 journals at a time? This would reduce submissions significantly, and also allow journals more comfort in knowing that the authors really are interested and that their offers, while being shopped, aren't being shopped to every single school ranked higher than they are.

The problem is that it would be hard for authors to credibly commit, since any individual is best served by cheating. But what if the system's intermediaries--ExpressO and Scholastica--offered this feature? That is, allowed authors to signal that they'd only submitted to a limited number of reviews at any one time, and then flagged those pieces as "exclusive" (or at least, semi-exclusive) for law review editors? If the reviews collectively stated a preference--even a mild one--for such submissions, maybe we'd all be better off.

Law Schools/Lawyering, Legal Scholarship | Bookmark

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8345157d569e201b8d0e1891d970c

Links to weblogs that reference Fixing Law Review Submissions:

Redyip has returned, and by virtue of my new role as Associate Dean for Faculty Development, I'm more interested than usual in the annual springtime flood of submissions to the newly minted law review editorial boards (although I do have an article out this cycle. And it's totally awesome).

The problem is one of volume: ExpressO and Scholastica have lowered the cost of submission to each additional journal to mere dollars, giving an author the incentive to submit to dozens and dozens of journals. The fall cycle is diminished, and so more and more submissions funnel into the weeks of February and March. For years this system limped along mostly on expedites, where authors submitted to large numbers of journals. Once an author received an offer from a journal, she would expedite up, and law reviews in the tier above the offering school would use those expedites as a screening mechanism. But anecdotal reports suggest that the sheer volume of articles may be overwhelming students, and expedited articles are going unread.

The typical law prof response is to tut-tut, and murmur approvingly about peer reviewed journals. But a peer review journal means exclusive submissions, the torture of revise and resubmit, and a whole lot of work from the peers (i.e., us). I think most professors, when alone with their thoughts in the dark of night, would admit that they like the ability to submit simultaneously, and the closure of knowing where their piece will land come April. So what to do?

ExpressO's now offers two limited forms of relief to student editors: First, it allows law reviews to set a maximum number of simultaneous requests for expedite. Second, it allows law reviews to select "peers" from which to receive expedites.

Here's a bolder solution: what if authors could credibly commit that they were only offering to 10-20 journals at a time? This would reduce submissions significantly, and also allow journals more comfort in knowing that the authors really are interested and that their offers, while being shopped, aren't being shopped to every single school ranked higher than they are.

The problem is that it would be hard for authors to credibly commit, since any individual is best served by cheating. But what if the system's intermediaries--ExpressO and Scholastica--offered this feature? That is, allowed authors to signal that they'd only submitted to a limited number of reviews at any one time, and then flagged those pieces as "exclusive" (or at least, semi-exclusive) for law review editors? If the reviews collectively stated a preference--even a mild one--for such submissions, maybe we'd all be better off.

Sun	Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat
		1	2	3	4	5
6	7	8	9	10	11	12
13	14	15	16	17	18	19
20	21	22	23	24	25	26
27	28	29	30	31