« Guns and Freedom, Pictures and Words | Main | Charting Pop Songs »

29 February 2008

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451b58069e200e550a0ae438834

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference California Law Review "Rules" Against Empirical Submissions:

Comments

Katie Porter

How about the "rule" of the Yale Law Journal: "For empirical work, please upload all materials needed to replicate your results (including computer programs and data sets)."

First, exactly why and how would I send them an entire computer program? I'm supposed to get them a Stata license? Second, this presumes that human subjects restrictions wouldn't bar such disclosure or at least require approval. If they are able, I think replication by editors is always a good thing, but it seems ridiculous to require this at the submission stage rather than the editing stage.

Joe Doherty

I don't think the 5 table/graph/chart rule is onerous. Like the prospect of being hanged, it concentrates an article wonderfully.

Christopher Zorn

The figures/graphics rule seems especially bad. Then again, it seems like the two contradict each other a bit -- is (e.g.) a scatterplot an "...or graphics" (and therefore banned) or an "author-created chart, graph, or table"?

And while we're on the subject of annoying law-review submission-season practices: What's up with ExpressO not accepting PDFs? For all of us out there using LaTeX, that's a huge hassle.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Conferences

November 2014

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            

Site Meter


Creative Commons License


  • Creative Commons License
Blog powered by Typepad