Over at Voir Dire, Jeff Yates (Georgia) has some interesting thoughts about the future of law reviews, potential reforms, and alternative models.
Comments
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.
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.
Posted by: Corey | 11 December 2007 at 02:10 PM