The Faculty Lounge

Matching Law Review Articles to Journals

A while ago, Michael Higdon blogged here about whether we have two many law reviews and initiated a very interesting discussion.  Commenters raised questions about whether there is too much scholarship, too much bad scholarship, difficulty sifting the bad from the good etc.

One issue that came out of the discussion that might be worth fleshing out further is the question of matching scholarship to journals.  A few folks suggested that maybe some of the general journals could become more 'thematic' so they could be known as THE journal for X type of article.  Even if journals don't do this, many editorial boards do look for particular mixes of articles and particular topics from year to year.  It struck me that maybe what would help would be a system for matching editors' preferences to articles in a particular year ie some way for the editors to signal that they are interested in a particular subject matter or range of subject matters at a particular time.  While Expresso currently allows authors to indicate keywords and categories for their work, journal editors still have to sift through thousands of articles in the database, and even using the keyword search functions they probably end up with hundreds of articles many of which are only peripherally relevant to what they're looking for.

If journals had a way of signalling at particular times that they were intersted in particular topics - even with a submission cycle (eg "we have our articles on con law and tort law and now we're looking for corporate law"), would this help streamline things for authors and journals alike?

In the fiction writing area, there is a system called Duotrope which helps with this function.  Magazines/publishing houses can input what they're looking for in terms of genre (which can change over time) and authors can do targeted searches to find the publishers they should submit to in terms of finding the best fit for their work.  The system is not perfect, but it at least gives authors more of a chance to 'direct' their submissions rather than sending hundreds of drafts out to publishers who may not be interested in their work at any given time.

Might something like this work for law reviews?

American Bar Foundation Seeks Visiting Scholars

Got a sabbatical coming up next year?  This just in from the ABF Visiting Scholar Program:

The American Bar Foundation (ABF) invites scholars to join our intellectual community for the 2012-2013 academic year. The ABF encourages national and international scholars on leave or sabbatical to take advantage of our diverse community and excellent facilities. We offer an office, telephone, and computer, but no stipend.

Preference will be given to visitors whose scholarship coincides with the research agenda of the ABF and who will be in residence full-time for all or part of the year. Summer visits are possible. Visitors are expected to participate in the intellectual life of the ABF, including a weekly seminar.

If you have an interest in this opportunity, please send an email to Robert Nelson at rnelson@abfn.org, subject line: Visiting Scholars Program, which states (1) the topic on which you are working, (2) the preferred dates for residence, (3) the days each week you would expect to be at the ABF, and (4) attach a CV.

Applications should be received by April 1, 2012. Applications will be considered as space allows. The ABF Appointments Committee will review applications and prospective visitors will be notified accordingly.

This year's scholars are: Erika George (Utah Law), Shobita Parthasarathy (Michigan Public Policy), and Lea Vandervelde (Iowa Law).

How many journals do we need?

A popular refrain of late is "How many law schools do we need?!?!"  A valid question to be sure.  I, however, would like to pose a somewhat related one.  Namely, how many law journals do we need?

Now, I am  not referring to new schools starting their own general journals -- I think every law school should produce a journal if, for no other reason, than to provide their students with the opportunity to work on a journal.  Instead, I'm referring to the proliferation of secondary journals.

Don't get me wrong -- I love secondary journals and I think that, in many respects, they play an essential role in the legal academy.  For example, a speciality journal dedicated to an area of law that has historically been looked down upon by general law reviews (legal writing is one example that comes to mind) can provide a much needed outlet to those (both scholars and readers) in that field.  But as schools add more and more to the list, I just wonder at what point are we maybe hurting the academy.  After all, each new journal that pops up needs to publish something (how else could it justify its existence).  Assuming the number of available articles remains constant, the more journals out there accepting submissions, the more articles get accepted.  And up to a point, that's great!  

However, I'm also assuming that only a certain percentage of available articles are of publishable quality (having worked as a law review editor, I feel fairly confident with this assumption, but feel free to correct me).  Yet, the more articles that are needed to fill all the available journals, the more likely are those of unpublishable quality to nonetheless find a home.  And it is no doubt those articles that critics of the field will seize upon when looking for a way to criticize legal scholarship.

Of course, maybe none of this should matter.  Indeed, who is to say what's "of publishable quality"?  Plus, these same arguments can be levied against general journals (of course, with the addition of a general journal at a new law school, we have the addition of a new law faculty producing scholarship).  In addition, perhaps it doesn't matter what's published, given that we can all read and thus figure out for ourselves what is good and what is not.  Finally, more journals provide more opportunities for students to work on a journal. 

So I'm curious.  What's your opinion?  The more the merrier or is there a point of diminishing returns?

Should I Share My Book Review With the Book Author Before the Review Is Published?

Over the summer, I wrote about a short book review I was asked to write for a non-legal publication.  The book review is written, edited, and now in final form.  It will be published several months from now.

In the meantime, it occurred to me that I should send a copy of the review to the author before the journal publishes it.  To me, it seems like the courteous thing to do.  I've written about this person's book, what I've written will be published for the world to see, so the author should know what I'm saying before it's out there.

For whatever it's worth, the review I wrote is not scathing, is actually full of praise, and is only very-mildly critical, and mostly just at the end of the review.  This is not going to be something that the book author reads and is shocked and horrified.  I guess if what I wrote were highly critical, I would feel even more of a sense of obligation to send along a copy before publication, but even without that, I think it would be the appropriate thing to do.

The only downside I can see is that the author would nitpick and argue, even with what I believe is just very mild criticism.  Taken to an extreme, the author might go to the journal and say that he doesn't believe what I've written is fair.  I want to stress how unlikely that is given what I've written, but in some world that is a possibility, even with very mild criticism.

So I welcome others' thoughts about it before I do anything.  Have others who have written book reviews done this in the past?  Is it expected?  Is there anything wrong with my gut instinct, which is to send it along before publishing?

The Author as Marketer

I've been doing a little research into the book publishing industry lately - an industry which like many content industries has been going through dramatic changes over the last decade or so in response to the advent of digital technologies.

One common theme across genres/markets is that publishers seem to be relying more and more on authors in the promotion and marketing of their work.  In trade, academic, non-fiction, and fiction markets, it appears that authors are routinely asked by publishers when pitching proposals how the author will assist in the marketing endeavors.  Authors may be expected to organize readings/signings at bookstores, blog about their work, distribute flyers at conferences etc.

This is understandable on the basis that the author is expected to identify a target market in order to pitch the book in the first place so the author may be expected to assist in making some inroads into the marketing of the work through contacts etc.  Also, publishers are under increasing financial pressure as the industry is disrupted by digital technology so they understandably want as little risk and as much assistance as possible when selecting authors/topics to work with.

Fiction authors routinely do all sorts of creative things including setting up blogs, Facebook pages in the names of their characters, book events, media appearances etc.  I'm interested in what law professors do.  In my last couple of book proposals, I was asked by my publisher how I would assist in marketing.  Obviously there's blogging and conferences.  And I do have some colleagues who organize readings and signings of books at bookstores.  What do others do?  How much work/time should academic authors be expected to contribute to the marketing side of the equation, particularly when one is doing a lot of writing for very little financial reward, although one would assume that a well marketed book plays into an author's success in other ways - recognition within their own field etc.

 

Take That, Europe! (And Australia and Canada)

Over at the Antitrust and Competition Policy Blog, Danny Sokol has had a couple of interesting posts about the importance of European, Canadian, and Australian law journals to US scholarship.  The answer – not that much.  According to Danny, the top ten most cited non-US journals (with overall rankings noted) are:

102 European Journal of International Law

237 International Journal of Constitutional Law

268 Journal of International Criminal Justice

283 International and Comparative Law Quarterly

302 Journal of International Economic Law

357 Journal of Competition Law and Economics

369 University of Toronto Law Journal

407 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies

463 McGill Law Journal

469 The Modern Law Review 

He concludes:

This suggests to me that US scholars and others who publish in US law reviews do not read non-US legal scholarship (some of which is westlaw searchable). Citations counts for economics and finance journals (none of which are westlaw searchable) are far higher than non-US law journals.

Now, there could be any number of plausible explanations for this . . . but here is where things get really interesting.  Especially if you’re bored at home during the holiday break.

 In a follow-on post, Sokol explains that he has received a bit of email feedback on the original post, and was surprised by “the broad agreement between both US and European professors on the reasons for the low citation counts.”

The explanations include:

• European journals tend to focus on doctrinal developments
• Many European developments are written about narrowly so as not to have broader impact outside of a European audience
• European legal scholarship overall is weaker than US scholarship
• What top UK and European journals look for is not cutting edge and what are essentially case reviews oftentimes place in the top journals
• You cannot write law and economics work in German law schools which means that the German scholars most likely to have an impact in the United States often do not teach in Germany
• Peer review in the European context hurts good European scholarship because too many senior people are not sophisticated and therefore want more work like their own
• The best scholars write in non-European peer review or US law reviews
• The harshest critic wrote "Compare the antitrust offerings of Oxford and Cambridge University Presses USA vs. Oxford and Cambridge University Presses UK" and then gave examples that it is better that I not post. 

This list of explanations is not exhaustive. Danny has more.  Given that the Faculty Lounge is now a global sensation, I suspect some of our Canadian, Australian, and European readers may have some thoughts. And perhaps Jacqui will want to weigh in, at least on the Australian comparison.  Or perhaps she’ll want to stay the heck out of it . . .

 

The Psychology (or Law) of Me?

This is an article of some interest to me (ha, ha): how much we should allow our research agendas to be driven by our own interests or identity.  The author (David Kille, a phd candidate in psychology at the University of Waterloo) discusses research in psychology, but the issue arises often in the legal academy as well.  He talks about this as "me-search."  

If I weren't so busy studying the writings of faculty at southern universities before the Civil War this afternoon I'd have a little more to say about this -- and particualrly the dangers of focusing your research too much on your own community.

Thinking Like Your Editor

I'm thinking this evening about the book I've been working on for the last few years -- or, depending on how one looks at this, for like half my adult life.  I prefer to frame it as the former rather than the later, because it makes me feel better about how long I've been working on this.  The book is about jurisprudence and proslavery thought in the old South.  I study academics' writings, as well as those of judges, and an occassional anti-slavery writer.  Mostly I'm interested in pretty dense material like treatises and appellate cases, but I also use trials, orations, articles in periodicals, speeches in Congress and on the stump ... even the occassional novel.  (The issue about length of time is: do I count the years I spent working on my dissertation, which is on a simlar topic?  My dissertation was heavily focused on pre-Civil War property doctrine; those were back in the days when legal historians didn't seem all that interested in doctrine.  Over time I migrated to being more interested in issues of jurisprudence, even non-judicial statements about law.  Now I realize that interest in doctrine in legal history is making a come-back.  So I'm in the situation that I'm out of touch again with the field.  Well, at least I can dust off those chapters on the subtleties of vested rights doctrine....)

Right now I'm thinking about dealing with editors -- and so I have pulled off the shelf one of the great, GREAT books for academics -- Susan Rabiner and Alfred Fortunato's Thinking Like Your Editor.  I rarely can tell if anyone actually listens to anything I write here.  But I must say this -- affecting the voice I use with students when I'm saying something they really need to hear, like what's on the exam, what's on the bar exam, or something that's a malpractice trap they might encounter -- if you're working on amonograph, you would really benefit from Thinking Like Your Editor.  It's easily worth the $10 or so that you'll spend to get a used copy.  Well worth it.  Also, you'll want to read -- and this is free -- Dedi Felman's article from the Chroncile on "What Book Editors Are Looking For."

Forget all that stuff I wrote this spring about Chris Tomlins' Freedom Bound being the work you most need to read in legal history ... if you're writing something, this is the book you need to read!

(I wrote some on this five years ago -- actually, I now see *exactly* five years ago, when I was posting at ratiojuris.)

Avoid Writing in December?

Is anyone ever productive in the scholarly sense around the holidays?  I honestly couldn't say whether I write more or less in December than I do at other times in the academic year.  However, recently reading Anne Lamott's Bird by Bird, on writing more generally ie not focused on academic writing, I learned the following.  Lamott notes that:

"December is traditionally a bad month for writing.  It is a month of Mondays.  Mondays are not good writing days.  One has had all that freedom over the weekend, all that authenticity, all those dreamy dreams, and then your angry mute Slavic Uncle Monday arrives, and it is time to sit down at your desk.  So I would simply recommend to the people in my workshops that they never start a large writing project on any Monday in December.  Why set yourself up for failure?" (p. xxviii)

Any application to law profs?  Would our deans find this argument convincing?

Dislcosing Publication Offers

While playing around on Expresso lately (yes, it's that time of year!), I noticed not for the first time the option when you're trying to expedite an article of deciding not to disclose the journal your offer came from or the date on which it expires.  I've always wondered why anyone would choose not to disclose this information unless: (a) they didn't really have an offer from another journal, but that doesn't make sense because surely authors wouldn't lie about something like that; or, (b) they are embarrassed by the perceived "level" of the journal that made the offer.

Does anyone ever really choose the "non disclosure" option when expediting, and, if so, what do journal editors make of it?  (Anonymous replies welcome!)

The Freakonomics of Downloads

The impact of a Freakonomics blog post about a paper, as measured by abstract views and download statistics from Research Papers in Economics (RePEc):

Nearly as impactful as a Faculty Lounge mention. 

The authors build a database of 94 papers linked to on 6 blogs: Aid Watch (before it ended), Chris Blattman, Economix (New York Times), Marginal Revolution, Freakonomics, and Paul Krugman.  The results? 

Blogging about a paper causes a large increase in the number of abstract views and downloads in the same month . . .

These increases are massive compared to the typical abstract views and downloads these papers get- one blog post in Freakonomics is equivalent to 3 years of abstract views! However, only a minority of readers click through – we estimate 1-2% of readers of the more popular blogs click on the links to view the abstracts . . .

Where Academic Writing Could (Sadly) End Up

With gratitude to my colleague (and occasional Faculty Lounge guest blogger), Cassandra Robertson, for drawing this to my attention.  Here's a review of an academic book on photography that Cassandra and I both felt may tell us something about the perils of how some of us write (or feel that we should write) law review articles.  See what you think!

John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation Fellowships for Artists and Scholars

The deadline for grant applications is September 15, 2011 (for the U.S. and Canada competition).  Here is a summary of the program.

The John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation provides fellowships for advanced professionals in all fields (natural sciences, social sciences, humanities, creative arts) except the performing arts. The fellowships are intended to further the development of scholars and artists by assisting them to engage in research in any field of knowledge and creation in any of the arts, under the freest possible conditions.

Fellowships are awarded through two annual competitions. Fellowships are grants to selected individuals made for a minimum of six months and a maximum of twelve months. Since the purpose of the program is to help provide fellows with blocks of time in which they can work with as much creative freedom as possible, grants are made freely. No special conditions attach to them, and fellows may spend their grant funds in any manner they deem necessary to their work.

The amounts of grants vary, and the foundation does not guarantee it will fully fund any project. Working with a fixed annual budget, the foundation strives to allocate its funds as equitably as possible, taking into consideration the fellows' other resources and the purpose and scope of their plans. Members of the teaching profession receiving sabbatical leave on full or part salary are eligible for appointment, as are those holding other fellowships and appointments at research centers.

The full RFP is here.  There are approximately 220 fellowships up for grabs, so folks with sabbaticals, leaves, etc. may want to check this out.

Call For Papers -- GW Junior Faculty Business and Financial Law Workshop

THE CENTER FOR LAW, ECONOMICS, AND FINANCE (C-LEAF)

AT

THE GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL 

Second Annual JUNIOR FACULTY BUSINESS AND FINANCIAL LAW WORKSHOP

AND JUNIOR FACULTY SCHOLARSHIP PRIZES 

Sponsored by Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP

CALL FOR PAPERS

 

            The Center for Law, Economics, and Finance (C-LEAF) at The George Washington University Law School is pleased to announce its second annual Junior Faculty Business and Financial Law Workshop and Junior Faculty Scholarship Prizes.  The Workshop and Prizes are sponsored by Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP. The Workshop will be held on February 10-11, 2012 at GW Law School in Washington, DC.

            The Workshop supports and recognizes the work of young legal scholars in accounting, banking, bankruptcy, corporations, economics, finance and securities, while promoting interaction among them and selected senior faculty. By providing a forum for the exchange of creative ideas in these areas, C-LEAF also aims to encourage new and innovative scholarship. 

Approximately ten papers will be chosen from those submitted for presentation at the Workshop pursuant to this Call for Papers. At the Workshop, one or more senior scholars will comment on each paper, followed by a general discussion of each paper among all participants. The Workshop audience will include invited young scholars, faculty from GW’s Law School and Business School, faculty from other institutions, and invited guests. 

At the conclusion of the Workshop, three papers will be selected to receive Junior Faculty Scholarship Prizes of $3,000, $2,000, and $1,000, respectively.  All prize winners will be invited to become Fellows of C-LEAF.* C-LEAF makes no publication commitment, but chosen papers will be featured on its website as part of the C-LEAF Working Paper series. 

            Junior scholars who have held a full-time academic appointment for less than seven years as of the submission date are cordially invited to submit summaries or drafts of their papers.  Although published work is not eligible for submission, submissions may include work that has been accepted for publication. C-LEAF will cover hotel and meal expenses of all selected presenters.

Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP, one of the leading law firms serving the financial services industry and known for its premier practice in the area of private investment funds and private equity M&A, generously sponsors the Junior Faculty Scholarship Workshop and Prizes and provides other financial assistance to C-LEAF. 

            Those interested in presenting a paper at the Workshop should submit a summary or draft, preferably by e-mail, before October 7, 2011.  To facilitate blind review, your name and other identifying information should be redacted from your paper submission.  Direct your submission, along with any inquiries related to the Workshop, to: 

Professor Lisa M. Fairfax

Leroy Sorenson Merrifield Research Professor of Law

George Washington University Law School

2000 H Street, NW

Washington, DC 20052

lfairfax@law.gwu.edu 

            Papers and Junior Faculty Scholarship Prizes will be selected after a blind review by members of the C-LEAF Executive Board. Authors of accepted papers will be notified by November 15, 2011. Please feel free to pass this Call for Papers along to any colleagues who may be interested.

---

* For more information on C-LEAF Fellowship, please visit our website at http://www.law.gwu.edu/Academics/research_centers/C-LEAF/Pages/default.aspx, or contact us at cleaf@law.gwu.edu.

SSRN Now Selling Bound Copies

I just got an announcement from SSRN that it is now selling bound copies of eligible articles.  For more information, see Purchase Bound Hard Copy. Authors may opt out.

I have two questions.  First, will law reviews start rejecting papers posted to SSRN, or require the author to opt out?  Second, with the abstract-publishing "journals," and hard copies available, is a paper on SSRN now "published scholarship?"  Clearly, Deans will want articles in top-tier law reviews.

Well, three questions:  will they print front-and-back?

Call For Papers -- Hate and Political Discourse

CALL FOR PAPERS Deadline: March 15, 2012

“Hate and Political Discourse”

Journal of Hate Studies

Volume X, No. 1 (2012/13)

Guest Editor: Robert L. Tsai, J.D. Professor of Law, American University, Washington College of Law

About the Theme

Often shielded by constitutional rules and nurtured by political discourse, hate has a mercurial existence in the popular imagination. In the “arena of angry minds,” as Richard Hofstadter called American political life, political actors sometimes choose to condemn hatred, distance themselves from it, appeal to its existence, or foment it.

Even when subjugation, discrimination, or violence is not the goal, the politics of hate can pay off. Rather than seeking its total eradication, many democracies assume the permanence of hate and seek to minimize its excesses or to punish and prohibit specific expressions. Are such assumptions well-founded, and such strategies wise?

Some of the social groups marked through the techniques of hatred have changed over time, as the political dividends for resorting to strategies of hate have shifted, while other groups seem to be consistent targets of hate. Technological advances offer new tools to combat hatemongering even as they can make demagogues more effective.

What are the structural conditions that allow hate to thrive or might permit its isolation? How might inroads be made in the law or politics of inclusion, especially in countries with strong commitments to rhetorical freedom and popular sovereignty?

Call for Submissions

The Journal of Hate Studies welcomes original papers treating the theme, “Hate and Political Discourse,” from a wide range of disciplines, including history, law, philosophy, political science, sociology, criminal justice, social psychology, economics, anthropology, geography, journalism, communications, rhetoric, literature, educational studies, and cultural studies.

We especially encourage original treatments of the following topics:

• Hate and popular sovereignty • How hate can foster alternative communities and movements • Cultural foundations of hate • Historical changes in rhetorical strategies • Political parties and hate • Necessary political conditions for hate • Empirical approaches to the problem of hate • The role of hate in nation-building • How literature, rhetoric, journalism or other forms of communication can fuel or

discourage hate 

• • •

Geographical differences in how hatred is sustained or combated Comparative approaches and cross-cultural challenges New technologies in combating or fomenting hatred in the realm of political discourse

We anticipate hosting an invitational Symposium in Fall 2012, either at American University or Gonzaga University, in conjunction with the publication of this Volume. Authors published in this Volume would be invited to present their work at the Symposium.

About the Journal

The Journal of Hate Studies is a peer-reviewed publication of the Gonzaga University Institute for Hate Studies. The Journal of Hate Studies is an international scholarly journal promoting the sharing of interdisciplinary ideas and research relating to the study of what hate is, where it comes from, and how to combat it. It presents cutting-edge essays, theory, and research that deepen the understanding of the development and expression of hate.

Guidelines for Submissions

Submissions are typically expected to be between 5,000 and 10,000 words. Submissions may be made in either of the following ways.

• As an attachment sent by email to hatestudies@gonzaga.edu • Through the Journal’s online site

(http://journals.gonzaga.edu/index.php/johs/information/authors) Submissions should be made in MS Word format. Please do not submit PDFs.

Submissions should be presented in APA format, with endnotes rather than footnotes. However, legal scholarship may be presented in Bluebook or ALWD.

More information about submission guidelines, the Journal of Hate Studies, and the Gonzaga University Institute for Hate Studies can be found at http://gonzaga.edu/hatestudies

For Questions or Communications

Robert L. Tsai, J.D. Guest Editor Professor, American University Washington College of Law rtsai@wcl.american.edu 202.274.4370

John Shuford, J.D., Ph.D. Director, Gonzaga University Institute for Hate Studies hatestudies@gonzaga.edu 509.313.3665

 

Download a copy of the announcement here:  Download Call for Papers.JournalHateStudies (FINAL 06-29-11)

The Short Book Review

I was asked to write a book review for a non-legal journal.  The book is a new book in a field I know well, so I agreed to do it.  However, now that I'm approaching writing it, I'm kind of stuck.

Two things are sticking points.  First, the length.  They want the review to be between 600 and 1000 words.  To a legal academic, that's a road map paragraph.  Second, the author.  The author of the book is someone much much more senior in the field than I am.

Putting these two things together, what can I possibly do with that little space?  I feel that if I have anything critical to say, it wouldn't be fair (to anyone, let alone someone so much my senior in the field) to dash off a critical thought without any space to really develop it.  After all, this is a book-length treatment of an issue, and all I get is a few hundred words.  It would feel like the equivalent of an academic hit-and-run.

So am I left with an essay that's more book report than book review?  Do I put any critical thoughts aside given the requirements?  Or, if I have any, do I mention them but keep them in the context of a more positive book-report-esque essay?

All thoughts welcome, especially from anyone who's written this type of "book review" before.  Thanks!

Do Specialty Journals Dilute Brand Value?

Can a school have too many speciality law reviews?  Prior to this week, I have framed the question in my own mind as one of staffing, i.e., does the school have enough students who are committed to quality journal work to provide the human power needed to run the journals' engines?

This week, I had a conversation with a colleague that caused me to consider the question from the prospective author's perspective.  Here's the scenario.

Professor X writes in speciality area Y.  Articles in speciality area Y are historically difficult, but not impossible, to place in "main" law reviews.  Professor X received several publication offers, and is seriously considering an offer from a speciality journal at School 1, a speciality journal at School 2, and another speciality journal at School 2.  The schools are comparable in prestige, and the journals have similar Washington & Lee stats.  School 1 has just three speciality law reviews.  School 2 has more than seven specialty law reviews.  The schools' student bodies are approximately the same size.

Absent additional information (e.g., anticipated publication date, reputation of journal for rigorous/lax edits, etc.), which journal should Professor X choose?  Should Professor X go with the offer from the journal at School 1 (which has only three speciality journals), over either of the journals at School 2?    Is the offer from a speciality journal at School 2 less "valuable" precisely because School 2 has so many speciality journals?  I am inclined to think that Professor X should accept the offer from the school that has fewer speciality journals, but I'm not sure that is a fair conclusion.  Do others have any thoughts on this question?

A Co-Working Studio for Law Professors? Writing Alone but in a Group

The folks who write for the New York Times Style section have the distinct ability to make things they write about sound . . . well, stylish.  I had a bit of the green eye today when I read (here) about the work habits of some freelancers and other independent types: "For rising tech stars, sharing a Brooklyn loft beats searching for a Wi-Fi signal at the local Starbucks." "140 characters in a Twitter post cannot compete with 26 characters in a Brooklyn loft," the NYT proclaimed.  

Co-working requires several individuals to pay a few hundred dollars each month for desk/computer space in a shared environment.  Folks who otherwise would be working alone have the companionship and possible synergies of working near other creative people.  The ground rules for functioning well in this kind of environment?   "1.  Show up, 2. Bring some work to do, 3. Don't be a jerk," according to a founder of one co-working space for freelancers. (Read the rest of the article here.)

Of the law profs I know, some folks can get summer writing projects done in their offices.  Others prefer a library or the comforts of home.  A few folks do good work on airplanes or a mini-vacation.  Some make "writing dates" with others (or themselves) at cafes.  But I don't know anyone who works in an expressly-designated co-writing space.

Might a co-writing studio work for law professors or other academics who need to write intensively over the summer?  Would it work only in large cities, where one could be reasonably assured that the co-writing space would not be filled with the same colleagues one sees at the office?  Or would such a project be doomed to fail, because law profs might have trouble with a few of the "rules"?   (My guess is that most would not have any trouble with the "bring some work to do" rule.)

 

A Cert Pool For Law Review Submissions?

In a recent post, blogger Dustin Cho (a former HLR editor), argues that law faculty should share information about the offer practices of the various law reviews.  If professors knew both how quickly a journal reviews articles, and whether it uses exploding offers, they could submit articles to journals strategically.

Cho's post is reasonable, but unfortunately fails to account for the full scope of the whacked-out law review submission process.  Among other things, it appears that many journals engage in a review practice that consists principally of sorting high value authors out of the mix, reviewing their work first, and waiting for expedite requests regarding all other submissions. 

You can't blame journals.  When a mid-level law review receives 1500 submissions, knowing full well that hundreds of these authors would ultimately decline an offer if one was made, it becomes hard to figure out how to use the journal's limited reading resources - and how to do so in a way that does not totally undermine morale.  My sense is that the journals that read the highest percentage of submissions are at the edges of the rankings.  The super-elites, like HLR, seem to at least scan everything (and can do so because they have large boards made up of editors willing to kill themselves for the journal.  These journals also seem to devolve reading responsibilities far more widely than most law reviews.)  Journals with the least developed reputations receive small numbers of submissions and are therefore able to read them all.  But the journals in between are crushed by volume and cannot call upon the labor resources available to the super-elites.

One possibility might be for a group of journals to create the equivalent of a cert pool.  If 75 law reviews got together and pitched in two editors to read and review articles, they could burn through 500 articles quickly.  The journals could take a week or two break and then hold a draft.  Just as in football, for example,  journals would choose both on absolute quality and topical need.  Assuming that the 75 journals agreed not to poach each other, this would radically reduce the size of the pool of journals engaging in expedites.   And while some individual journals in individual years might be slightly weakened, I suspect that the overall boat would rise - while making everyone's life happier.

I'm sure one could come up with a number of complaints. 

What about variable quality of student memos?  What about strategic production of bad memos - when a journal wants to protect a piece for itself by burying it under a negative cert memo?   One way to address these issues - at limited cost - would be to assign every piece to two readers. 

How would you order the draft?  One could use lots - but one could also rely on W&L or USN rankings - on the theory that the better ranked journals will typically have their pick anyway.  The lower ranked journals still win, because they will get their first choice before the other journals select a a second (or perhaps third - see below) piece.

What about law school reputation - everyone wants their school to claw ahead, and this might flatten journal quality?  Perhaps, but I suspect that journals that work harder investigating and reading pieces will still do better. 

What about journals that publish more issues and need more articles - won't they be hurt in the process?  One possibility would be to weight the draft and give schools taking more pieces more picks each round.