Thursday, May 5, 2016
Advice for Law Review Editors and Faculty Advisors
Today I hit “submit” on an article I was asked to review for an international law journal. Because the process required blind peer review, I won’t be any more specific other than to say that the article related to a topic that I have written and spoken about extensively over the past few years. Unfortunately, the author did not cite any of the main (or even ancillary) articles on the topic and instead focused on a number of disparate theories that barely related to the title or topic of the piece. In short, the article had a few good pages and might make a few decent articles, but only after major revisions. I knew what the article was missing because I have read almost every other piece written on the topic.
As a junior academic, I admit that the most frustrating part of the law review process is the lack of peer review, at least in the United States. My colleagues in the EU review articles of 10-12,000 words on average and generally have 1-2 other reviewers deciding on publication of a scholar’s piece. The review period tends to be 6-8 weeks (or so I have been told) and generally journals require exclusive submission. In worst case scenarios, authors can wait several months for an acceptance or rejection. Although I am not a fan of the exclusive submission process, I do prefer the peer review model. It may be subjective, but it’s no more subjective than having articles accepted by 2Ls and 3Ls, who may have no expertise or familiarity with the topic they are reviewing.
A 2014 essay by Josephine Potuto raises another issue with the U.S. law review system—how the articles are edited. The abstract states simply:
Law professors publish in law reviews, not peer-reviewed journals. They are edited by law students. The editing process can be both irritating and exasperating. From experiences lived and those shared by colleagues across the country, I provide concrete examples of where law student editors go wrong, and also explain why.
Finally, in an effort to improve the process, I recommend that faculty advisors and editors read some of my co-bloggers’ insights on the topic.
http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/business_law/2014/11/nightmare-in-law-review-land-.html
http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/business_law/2014/09/more-on-the-irrelevance-of-law-reviews.html
Happy grading to all and I wish you a productive summer. I will be writing less frequently in May due to a honeymoon and then a research trip to Cuba, which of course, I will blog about. I'm also writing a law review article on Cuba, so hopefully editors won't hold this column against me!
https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/business_law/2016/05/advice-for-law-review-editors-and-faculty-advisors.html
BRAVO, Marcia. This is an excellent post. Thanks for sharing your experience and your insights.
I recently did a peer review on a piece that also had many gaps. But I also recently did one on a piece that was quite good. It's always unfortunate, however, to get an article for promotion or tenure review that has gaps because of a lack of vetting or appropriate mentoring. I always wonder if peer review might have prevented that train wreck from happening . . . .
There are pluses and minuses to both systems and to the way in which each is implemented from journal to journal. Maybe we can fix both if we keep writing about this . . . .
Posted by: joanheminway | May 6, 2016 1:27:05 PM