Jason and I haven't had a chance to coordinate on this, so rather than trying to speak for both of us, I'll offer my thoughts and he can chime in with his own if he is so inclined.
First, I'd like to thank everyone for their thoughtful comments and critiques of our paper. You've given us a lot to think about and the next draft of the paper will be substantially better because of your input.
Second, there's been a lot of talk over the last two days about ways in which our data might be refined and improved. There is clearly a great deal of useful work that could be done in this area and I hope that our study will just be the beginning of a more well-informed discussion of the student-edited law review and how it fits into the overall schema of legal scholarship. I, for one, would be particularly interested to seem some empirical data, expanding on Christine's "armchair empiricism," that examines what law reviews actually publish. Somewhere between what editors say they consider and what they actually publish lies the truth about how these decisions get made.
Finally, I want to thank Bill Henderson for seeking us out and organizing this forum. It is, of course, always nice to have someone come from out of the blue and express interest in your work. But the forum has also been useful for us and, I hope, for everyone else as well.