Law Journals’ Policies On Empirical Articles
Browsing the website of the California Law Review, I came across two rules that pose something of a problem for folks writing empirical articles:
4) CLR does not allow the use of images or graphics in our published articles.
5) CLR will publish up to five author-created charts, graphs, and/or tables. All charts, graphs, and tables must be included in the manuscript by the end of the primary editing stage.
Both of these rules may get the in the way of coherent presentation of data, and I’m not sure what motivated the law review to promulgate them. (I imagine that no one actually follows these rules, or that they are negotiable, but why have them in the first place?)
This prompts a question: have people doing empirical work had particularly good or bad experiences working with student-edited journals? From what I’ve observed, editors stay far away from mucking with data or questioning regression methods, and journals’ graphics departments aren’t yet STATA-friendly. Is that about the norm?
[Update: Michael Heise reacts here and observes that "CLR's submission requirements invite some level of risk to that Review."]