California Law Review "Rules" Against Empirical Submissions

Over at Concurring Opinions Dave Hoffman reacts to manuscript submission "requirements" at the California Law Review.  As Dave notes, requirements 4 and 5 could easily pose something of a problem for empirical pieces.  To be fair to the California Law Review, it is possible that these requirements are routinely waived or, simply, ignored.  Then again, maybe not. Regardless, such rules certainly convey a tone that will deflect some empirical manuscripts elsewhere.  Even for folks still inclined to publish in student-edited journals (rather than the growing number of faculty-edited, peer-reviewed journals), why bother with one that appears indifferent to empirical work? And, alas, maybe that is simply the outcome the editors' desire. Given the palpable trend in legal scholarship today toward empirical scholarship, however, CLR's submission requirements invite some level of risk to that Review.

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.