Home | About | RSS Feed | Contact and Publicity Guidelines | Comment Policy the Law, the Universe, and Everything 

Search


Concurring Opinions is a
general-interest legal blog
operated by Concurring
Opinions LLC, a Pennsylvania
Limited Liability Corporation.

jr_114_9780195367195_bnr

jr_114_9780195383768_bnr

advertise-here4


FC-CO(SS)

Our Podcast

Subscribe to Law Talk

law-rev-contents2.jpg


  • Posts by Author

  • Categories

  • Archives


  • Recent Comments

    • A.J. Sutter on Doe v. Wal-Mart: Must Common Law be Reformed to Protect Workers?

    • fau on Public opinion on same-sex marriage

    • Mike Zimmer on From the other side at AALS . . .

    • Mike Zimmer on The Employer’s Strategy in Gross v. FBL Financials

    • Mike Zimmer on Drafting the 28th Amendment

    • M.G.M on Drafting the 28th Amendment

    • A.J. Sutter on Lawyers: Don’t Trade on Inside Information!

    • No Load Funds on Consumer Financial Product Safety?

    • grad student on Princeton and the Behavioral Revolution

    • Anon321 on The Passive Voice in Statutory Interpretation

    • Steven Kaminshine on The Employer’s Strategy in Gross v. FBL Financials

    • Alex Kreit on Politicians: Have you talked to your constituents about drug policy?

    • Alex Kreit on Election Night 2009

    • mikeb302000 on Election Night 2009

    • Neal Goldfarb on The Passive Voice in Statutory Interpretation

  •  

    Site Meter

Spring Law Review Submission Season

posted by Mike Dimino

A friend and colleague asked me to post a question about the timing of the upcoming spring submission season. Should he wait until March to send out the first wave of submissions for an essay he will soon complete, send it in the middle of February, or at some other time? This post last year by Orin Kerr says that “late February and early March” are the prime times, but I wonder if our readers can provide more specific advice or anecdotal information about turn-over in editorial boards. I’ve also heard of some journals moving to a rolling submissions process, but I don’t know how many use that system, or even whether such a transition would be viable if most of the market continues to accept pieces primarily in February/March and August.


 February 1, 2006 at 12:34 pm   Posted in: Law School, Law School (Law Reviews)   Print This Post Print This Post

Responses (4)

  1. Dave Hoffman - February 1, 2006 at 7:25 pm

    At AALS, I heard that the submission time was moving up to mid-Feb., but I’ve decided to ignore that information. Last year, I submitted an article in late-Feb. and had around half the boards notify me that it was premature, and that turnover wouldn’t occur until the second or third week of March at the earliest. It isn’t clear to me, in any event, that off-cycle submissions are at a real disadvantage.

  2. Alan Tauber - February 1, 2006 at 10:42 pm

    I recall from my days in law school (not so long ago) that the transition took place in the third week of Feb, and it takes a couple weeks for the new board to get up and running.

  3. Seth Rogers - February 2, 2006 at 12:00 am

    I think it depends on the school.

    I screened article submissions as articles editor last year. Primarily, this meant taking email submissions.

    The slowest period was during the summer, with traffic picking up rapidly through September and early October. During the rush, I’d sometimes get 20 submissions in a single day and we were only a “third tier” school.

    For the Spring issue, I’d agree that February and March were the rush periods.

    A few things to consider:

    1. Early birds can sometimes get more attention. During the summer months, I paid much closer attention to the articles that came across my desk. We didn’t have anything nailed down at that point and were rather concerned about making sure we managed to snag some good articles before they were snatched up by other law reviews. This gave the early birds an advantage.

    2. During the rush, you’ll need fairly good credentials, presentation, and substance to stand a chance. The volume is, quite simply, too much. The fact is that too many writers simply spam EVERY law review in the country with their article (very easy with the uniform email submission system nationwide) – even the ones they have no intention of accepting under any reasonable circumstance (a somewhat incourteous practice for the editors who have to deal with the submissions).

    I had to set some fairly arbitrary and unfair screening procedures simply to keep my head above the flood (this equation is quite different with more prestigious law reviews who have a large cadre of underlings to handle this stuff). Many law reviews apparently do Lexis/Westlaw searches to see how many times a particular author has been cited in legal publications and rank authors that way. We never bothered with this method (after all, we didn’t get even half the volume of tier one schools). But we did arbitrarily reject every student submission, and we really scrutinized those from “non-professors.” We also didn’t pay much attention to stuff that wasn’t a great fit with our own legal community (the primary consideration of a small local school).

    3. Submissions after the “rush” can also be timely if you happen to catch a law review that had a couple authors “flake out” on them (happens more often than you’d think).

    4. If the law review in question is doing a symposium for this issue, it won’t matter what you do if your article doesn’t match the subject matter of the symposium (unless you’re Erwin Chemerinsky …). This kind of thing is usually determined by editorial boards months in advance.

    5. Take the time to skim through the law reviews that you are most serious about. This will give you an idea of whether your article is really relevant to the publication.

    On a final note … Please make the effort to be prompt in your email communications. It’s plain common courtesy, but you’d be surprised how many attorneys and professors didn’t bother to respond at all to publication offers or blew off draft deadlines. This kind of behavior can really poison the editorial board’s attitude toward your article and it can ruin your shot at publication.

    Best of luck.

  4. Kaimi - February 2, 2006 at 8:30 pm

    So _you’re_ the one who dinged my masterpiece, Seth Rogers. You’d better be watching your back, buddy! I know where you live! Or, at least, where you blog comment.

Leave a Reply

*
To prove you're a person (not a spam script), type the security word shown in the picture. Click on the picture to hear an audio file of the word.
Click to hear an audio file of the anti-spam word


  • « Previous post
  • Next post »

Authors

Daniel J. Solove

Website
Understanding Privacy

Kaimipono Wenger

Website
SSRN Page

Dave Hoffman

Website
SSRN Page

Nate Oman

Website
SSRN Page

Frank Pasquale

Website
SSRN Page

Deven Desai

Website
SSRN Page

Danielle Citron

Website
SSRN Page

Lawrence Cunningham

Website
SSRN Page

Sarah Waldeck

Website
SSRN Page

Jaya Ramji-Nogales

Website
SSRN Page

Solangel Maldonado

Website
SSRN Page

Gerard Magliocca

Website
SSRN Page


Guests

Rachel Godsil
Alex Kreit
Anita Krishnakumar
Matthew Sag
Michael Zimmer






Previous Guests

Michael Abramowicz
Michelle Adams
Robert Ahdieh
Michelle Anderson
Laura Appleman
Ann Bartow
Francesca Bignami
Jeremy Blumenthal
Kathleen Boozang
Bruce Boyden
Donald Braman
Al Brophy
Neil H. Buchanan
Bill Burke-White
Scott Burris
Paul Butler
Naomi Cahn
Anupam Chander
Miriam Cherry
Jack Chin
Jennifer Collins
Allison Danner
Brannon Denning
Deven Desai
Mike Dimino
Mark Edwards
David Fagundes
Christine Haight Farley
Kim Ferzan
Dan Filler
Michael Froomkin
Amanda Frost
Timothy Glynn
Rachel Godsil
Eric Goldman
David Gray
Craig Green
Tristin Green
Jeffrey Harrison
Erica Hashimoto
Carissa Hessick
Laura Heymann
Robert Hillman
Christine Hurt
Darian Ibrahim
John Ip
Kevin Johnson
Dan Kahan
Brian Kalt
Sam Kamin
Michael Kang
Chimène Keitner
Orin Kerr
Nancy Kim
Heidi Kitrosser
Adam Kolber
Russell Korobkin
Anita S. Krishnakumar
Susan Kuo
Greg Lastowka
Sarah Lawsky
Erik Lillquist
Jeff Lipshaw
Jonathan Lipson
Jacqueline Lipton
Joseph Liu
Michael Madison
Solangel Maldonado
Jason Mazzone
Linda McClain
William McGeveran
Salil Mehra
Carrie Menkel-Meadow
Max Minzner
Scott Moss
Eric Muller
Jaya Ramji-Nogales
Helen Norton
Elizabeth Nowicki
Paul Ohm
Michael O'Shea
David Opderback
Kristen Osenga
Rafael Pardo
Marcy Peek
Eduardo Peñalver
Robert Percival
David Post
Shruti Rana
Geoffrey Rapp
Neil Richards
Lori Ringhand
Alice Ristroph
Susan Scafidi
Paul Secunda
Jonathan Siegel
Jessica Silbey
Peter Smith
Charles Sullivan
Rick Swedloff
Steph Tai
Andrew Taslitz
Robert Tsai
Jenia Turner
Steve Vladeck
Sarah Waldeck
Melissa Waters
Alfred Yen
David Zaring
Timothy Zick
Spencer Weber Waller
Howard Wasserman
Frank Wu
Corey Yung
Jonathan Zittrain

Blogroll

Above the Law
ACS Blog
Althouse
Balkinization
Becker-Posner Blog
BlackProf
BoingBoing
Chicago Law Faculty Blog
Conglomerate
CrimLaw
Crime & Federalism
CrimProf Blog
Crooked Timber
Discourse.net
Dorf on Law
Election Law
Emergent Chaos
The Faculty Lounge
Feminist Law Profs
43(B)log
Freakonomics Blog
Freedom to Tinker
Google Blogoscoped
How Appealing
Ideoblog
Info/Law
Instapundit.com
Juris Novus
Jurisdynamics
Law and Humanities Blog
Law and Letters
Law Librarian Blog
Legal Profession Blog
Legal Theory Blog
Legal Times Blog
Leiter Reports
Brian Leiter's Law School Reports
Lessig Blog
Madisonian Theory
Media Law Blog
Mirror of Justice
The Moderate Voice
National Security Advisors
Opinio Juris
Point of Law
PrawfsBlawg
ProfessorBainbridge.com
Property Prof Blog
Red Tape Chronicles
The Right Coast
Schneier on Security
SCOTUSBlog
Security Dilemmas
Sentencing Law and Policy
Simple Justice
Sivacracy.net
The Situationist
Susan Crawford
TalkLeft
Talking Points Memo
TaxProf Blog
Tech & Marketing Law
Truth on the Market
Volokh Conspiracy
WorkPlace Prof Blog
WSJ Law Blog
Wonkette
The Yin Blog


© Concurring Opinions

Powered by WordPress