Announcing the Law Review Table of Contents Project

You may also like...

7 Responses

  1. Jason says:

    I use the Washington & Lee library website’s RSS feed for precisely this purpose. This seems rather repetitive, unless I’m missing something that will differentiate this? (Aside from arbitrary definitions about what a “top” law review is; but now I’m just being snarky to no good purpose.)

  2. Yeah, I was thinking “Did they make some deal with W&L?” Seems to me that an RSS widget would show all law review TOC content without having to depend on law reviews to provide content… (just have to rely on W&L, which has been pretty consistent).

  3. Ted McClure says:

    Similarly, eCILP at the University of Washington (https://lib.law.washington.edu/cilpfiles/cilp.html) has been doing this for several years.

  4. I have used clipping services in the past. They were fine, but our site has some features that these services will not have:

    1. Our journal contents will be archived in a general category and also in a category for each journal, where journal’s online forum content will also be discussed. Over time, these archive categories will become useful resources. One will be able to peruse the tables of contents for an entire year or more on these pages. These archive pages will also be useful for doing searches for any keywords.

    2. Journals will be providing links to online versions of their articles. This will be helpful for easy access to the scholarship.

    3. Some journals will also be posting abstracts, something that clipping services typically don’t provide.

  5. dave hoffman says:

    Apart from Dan’s point, I’ll just confess to being one of those folks who has never successfully managed to use RSS feeds for any purpose.

  6. Kaimi says:

    One more possibility, as well, is that blog comments may add value.

    Of course, some blog comments are just noise; and the law review posts don’t always draw a lot of comments. So this won’t necessarily happen every time.

    Nevertheless, hopefully, there will be some comment feedback, that could generate good discussions — i.e., “Look, it’s a new article by Solove this month, and that should be interesting given what Pasquale wrote last year, and Hoffman two years ago,” etc.

  7. greglas says:

    You all continue to amaze me with your innovations, but I’ve got to agree with some of the earlier posters — I’ve got a clips service, and for the past few days, Concurring Opinions has seemed a lot less like Concurring Opinions and a lot more like, well, tables of “top” law review contents.

    If I could have my way, I ask you to split this new service off on a separate blog so that the primary Co-Op blog can return to original posts and comments (and I do enjoy the comments too!).

    But I realize I don’t have a vote on the board of Co-Op LLC, so good luck with this new plan!