As Dan’s previous post alludes to, in light of recent developments, many law prawfs might now be convinced that drastic changes need to happen within the law review submission process.
I, however, think the problem lies elsewhere. The issue for many seems to be that their particular article was better than its placement. And high placement for articles is connected with various benefits, including perhaps higher pay, more mobility options, prestige, recognition, tenure, etc. But that’s the problem. 2Ls have power that they should never been given.
Here’s my solution: read the articles. If it’s good, recognize it as such. If it’s not, well, do what you’d like. But there’s no reason why intelligent people should give automatic respect to an article that they haven’t read simply because 2Ls at a top school thought it was a great piece of scholarship.
I understand the need for qualitative ranking. If that’s the case, perhaps scholars in the various fields should rank the top, say, 20, articles each year. If your article appears on the list, then you have shown to your colleagues that your work is well-respected by your peers. I'm sure others can devise other ways of ranking articles. But the legal academy must simply get beyond giving placement intrinsic value.