« 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 11 December 2007 at 08:22 AM in Scholarship | Permalink
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.
11 December 2007 at 02:10 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.