Monday, September 22, 2014

More on the Irrelevance of Law Reviews

In July, I blogged about the irrelevance of law reviews. Here’s more evidence.

I spoke at a symposium on crowdfunding in late March and submitted my article, Shooting the Messenger: The Liability of Crowdfunding Intermediaries for the Fraud of Others, to the law review in late June. The editor-in-chief recently informed me that the edited article would be available for my review sometime in November, and that it should be published in March of 2015.

In the meantime, the article is accumulating downloads on SSRN, the Social Science Research Network. By the time it’s published, most of the people who are most interested in the topic will have already read it. The law review will provide a published archive that people can cite to, but that’s about it.

C. Steven Bradford | Permalink


For what it is worth, the situation is even more acute in the field of physics, where almost all published papers are first vetted as preprints in arXiv. It isn't uncommon for new experimental findings to have dozens of papers analyzing the discoveries before they are accepted by a journal and printed.

Posted by: ohwilleke | Sep 22, 2014 3:08:31 PM

It's a little different where papers are peer-reviewed. The benefit (?) of peer review is a justification for the delay. Student-edited law reviews can't offer that countervailing benefit as a justification for the delay.

Posted by: Steve Bradford | Sep 23, 2014 5:39:28 AM

Man, what a resource SSRN has become!

Posted by: Tom N | Sep 23, 2014 5:59:13 PM

Post a comment