« Efforts to Clarify Instrumental Variables |
| Marquette Martini Party at AALS »
Over at Voir Dire, Jeff Yates (Georgia) has some interesting thoughts about the future of law reviews, potential reforms, and alternative models.
Posted by Michael Heise on December 11, 2007 at 08:22 AM in Scholarship | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451b58069e200e54fb3082c8834
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Future of Law Reviews:
As a former Articles Editor for a highly cited review, I can tell you that I would not have put in a tenth of the hours proofreading and citechecking and otherwise correcting professorial oversights if I were not allowed to engage substantively in the article selection process.
There is no incentive to do all of the drudgery editing work if a faculty review board owns content selection. I worked extremely hard (and my authors can attest to this) to perfect the articles that I picked out for publication myself.
Our journal had a great volume with no faculty involvement (other than in writing the articles.) These reforms are a solution in search of a problem, and the core issue is that professors don't trust students. You want to make arbitrary submissions but you don't want the selection process to seem arbitrary? ok.
December 11, 2007 at 02:10 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.