We're in the middle (or are we nearing the end?) of the spring submission process. Some lucky souls have hit paydirt with "top twenty" placements, others are playing the "trade up" game, and yet others are still waiting by the phone (or the computer) for that first nibble.
In deciding which placement offer to accept, an author may consider the speed with which the article will be published. Three months? Four months? Six months? Longer?
Most of us have experienced the situation where, following our acceptance, months go by with no word from the student editors, and no first-round edits. Have we been forgotten? Abandoned? Aren't we loved any more?
Which prompts me to ask this: have you ever negotiated a time period (e.g., three months, four months, etc.) in which the student editors must provide you with first-round edits, or you reserve the right to pull the article?
Tim,
I think those are separate questions: (1) have you negotiated, and (2) remedies for breach. Law review publication contracts are the ultimate in terms of the irrelevance of contract LAW. A professor always has the ability to pull an article (what are they going to do, sue for specific performance?); the remedy for a law review is self-help by blacklisting the professor in the future. And that remedy can be imposed even if the professor technically complies with the contract. The entire system functions on an honor code of convention and custom. One can set expectations by having an explicit deal, but even there only within the limits of convention and custom. For example, negotiating a first round edit within 3 months means that it will really be four months (instead of otherwise being six months); and on the law professor side, contract terms saying that the professor cannot add more than 10% in length during editing means that the professor will really add 20% in length (instead of adding 50% otherwise).
Posted by: TJ | March 14, 2011 at 05:51 PM