law review

Subscribe to law review via RSS

This post started off as a comment to co-blogger Haskell Murray's post Modifying the Law Review Submission and Review Process, and is perhaps overkill, but at least a few of us, thanks in part to Steve Bradford's post, are finding the conversation fruitful, so here we go:

In response to my suspicion that widespread law review changes could impact promotion and tenure (P&T) processes, Haskell writes: "I am not sure why the expectations for P&T would have to change if law reviews instituted blind review.  It seems that all blind review would do is make the selection process more fair."  

Maybe he is right, but here's my thinking: I  believe expectations for P&T would change because I believe that widespread blind review would increase the (already long) turnaround time for getting pieces accepted for publication.  If I am right (an open question) that it would increase the review time, it would make it harder for some faculty to get their pieces accepted, which is often required for it to "count" in the review process. Perhaps this would be a good thing, but I would see it as a potentially significant change. 

This could also impact higher ranked schools…

Steve Bradford yesterday posted a thoughtful (as is usual for his posts) critique of law reviews. I had drafted a comment, but Steve suggested that I should post links to my prior posts separately, so here goes, along with (what has turned out to be a lot of) additional commentary.

I think Steve has some valid (and compelling) points. As I have written before, though, I can’t go as far as he does.  I won’t rehash all that I have written before on this subject, but one of my earlier posts, Some Thoughts for Law Review Editors and Law Review Authors covers a lot of that ground.  Please click below to read more: 

Yesterday, the New York Times published what I consider a medicocre criticism of law reviews.  Not that some criticism isn't valid.  It is.  I just think this one was poorly executed.  Consider, for example, these thoughtful responses from Orin Kerr and Will Baude.

As I have thought about it, one thing that struck me was about the Times article was the opening:

 “Would you want The
New England Journal of Medicine to be edited by medical students?” asked
Richard A. Wise, who teaches psychology at the University of North Dakota. 

Of course not. Then why are law reviews, the primary
repositories of legal scholarship, edited by law students?

I don't disagree with the premise, but note how limiting it is.  First, it talks about one journal, one that is highly regarded.  I know some people hate all law reviews, but I humbly suggest that most people consider elite journals like the Yale Law Journal a little differently.  (It's also true that some journals like the Yale Law Journal happen to use some forms of peer review in their process.) 

Second, the implication is that medical journals have it all figured out.  That's apparently not true, either.  An article from…