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

advertise-here4


Slip Opinions


Groundhog Day. (fp)

Banned in Tucson. (kw)

The Best and Worst of 2011 in Race and Law (kw)

Tortured to death for trespassing. (fp)

Drones of contention. (fp)

DOJ still coddling banks. (fp)

Creative destruction? Thank banks. (fp)

Blog about a new book, on how to talk to little girls--stressing smarts not cutes.   LAC

Macey on the heroic Rakoff. (fp)

Captured NY Fed. (fp)


solicitors

Our Podcast

Subscribe to Law Talk

law-rev-contents2.jpg


  • Posts by Author

  • Categories

  • Archives


  • Recent Comments


    • Ian on Physical Punishment and Parental Rights

    • Peterk on Physical Punishment and Parental Rights

    • Robert on Physical Punishment and Parental Rights

    • Three Oranges on Physical Punishment and Parental Rights

    • Paul Robichaux on Physical Punishment and Parental Rights

    • JR on Physical Punishment and Parental Rights

    • Jan on Physical Punishment and Parental Rights

    • Mark on Physical Punishment and Parental Rights

    • Shag from Brookline on Omelets and Eggs

    • Shag from Brookline on Omelets and Eggs

    • Joe on What Exactly is Wrong With Polygamy?

    • Phil on What Exactly is Wrong With Polygamy?

    • Lee on Lifecycles and the Firm

    • Car accident claim lawyers on Symposium Next Week on "A Legal Theory for Autonomous Artificial Agents"

    • Andrew MacKie-Mason on Can't the Supreme Court Just Say No to Cameras?
  •  

    Site Meter

    About the Blog

    Concurring Opinions is a multiple authored, general interest legal blog.

    (Image: Wikicommons)

In the bleak midwinter . . .

posted by Mark Edwards

A little inside baseball discussion for the professoriate: it seems that law review submission time is upon us. 

My current submission strategy

My current submission strategy

Many of us are trying to put the finishing touches on articles during the winter teaching break. And, according to ExpressO, a number of highly-regarded reviews that have been closed to submissions are opening themselves again in the very near future.  Therefore, I think it’s safe to say a tsunami of footnotes is bearing down upon many law review offices.

For the relatively new, untenured among us – oh say, for instance, me – this is an especially important moment, and it’s important to get it right.  The pressure can make us a little loopy.  Last week I sat listening to the lovely Christmas carol In the Bleak Midwinter, and when it got to the verse, “What have I to offer, poor as I am?” the image that flashed in my mind was me, face smudged with dirt, sending out a crinkled copy of my current draft article.

Me, immediately following article submission

Me, immediately following article submission

A wonderful professor of mine – then untenured, now safely ensconced in the tenured embrace of the Ivy league – once dressed for Halloween as ‘Notenuratu,’ a vampire-like creature whose cape was covered with pages of his draft articles. 

But how, exactly, does one get the submission process right?  It’s a question that I suspect takes up a lot of chat time among us junior scholars.   Do you have a submission strategy?  Want to share it?  Pretty please?


 January 4, 2010 at 12:30 pm   Posted in: Uncategorized   Print This Post Print This Post

Responses (7)

  1. 3L - January 4, 2010 at 3:01 pm

    As an Exec Articles editor, I caution against submitting too early for the spring cycle because most editorial boards are brand new and don’t know what they’re doing yet. Let them cut their teeth on other articles.

  2. Unsure - January 4, 2010 at 3:28 pm

    This whole “submission cycle” business, I’m told, is overrated. If a law review wants an article you write, my senior sources tell me, they’ll take it regardless of whether it is “in season” or not. So submit whenever you’re ready. Is this right? Or is timing part of the scholarly process too?

  3. The Dude - January 4, 2010 at 10:21 pm

    As a current EIC, I would caution against completely ignoring the submission cycle. A top-tier journal that publishes 5+ issues an academic year might take your article “regardless of whether it is “in season.” However, lower-tier journals, that publisher fewer issues, often “fill-up” rapidly toward the middle or end of a submission cycle, and are unable to make publication offers. Even if they want your article, they are unable to make an offer because that decision is normally reserved for next year’s editorial board. Some journals simply stop checking their expresso account at that point (or deleting submissions), and these submissions never even make it to the next year’s board.

    Why do they fill up when good submissions might come along at a later date? Lower-tiered journals struggle to attract good article. Often, when they make an offer, the author uses that offer to parlay it into one from a higher-tiered journal. As a result, lower-tiered journals are worried they won’t be able to fill their volume will quality article. After all, if a good submission comes along later, a better journal will probably take it–that’s the assumption at least. The result: low quality articles get snapped up by over-offering non top-tier journals, which then stop monitoring submissions.

    In sum, unless you’re certain you’ll attract an offer from a tier 1 journal, you should strongly consider submitting during the submission cycle. It would be nice if there was a national EIC election day, but there’s not. I expect that many of the new EIC’s (who then install their editorial boards) are elected by the end of February. This might be the best time to submit.

  4. Jeff Lipshaw - January 5, 2010 at 4:12 am

    Ah, but the rejection season knows no bounds. In the spirit of the season, a rejection from a “top 20″ review came down my chimney on December 23 for a piece I submitted in the “fall” submission season. (It’s in final edits in another journal.)

    It kind of reminded me of the most vitriolic “you aren’t complying with our discovery requests” letter I ever saw. After spending about a page and a half accusing the other lawyer of every offense known to humanity, God, and the FRCP, the letter, also dated something like December 23, closed with a perky “Best wishes for the holiday season.”

  5. krs - January 5, 2010 at 2:25 pm

    Was a law review rejection letter full of vitriol, or did the closing just seem out of place?

    Civil discovery is 90% of the reason why lawyers are rightfully hated.

  6. Jeff Lipshaw - January 5, 2010 at 4:54 pm

    No, it wasn’t vitriolic at all. Just weirdly late, and like a Xmas gift.

  7. 3L - January 10, 2010 at 4:28 pm

    Think of what a great Xmas gift it would have been for the students, had they spent time reviewing your piece (which you didn’t withdraw upon accepting an offer at another journal) only to find, after extending an offer, that their time was wasted!

Leave a Reply

Spam protection by WP Captcha-Free


  • « Previous post
  • Next post »

Authors

Daniel J. Solove
Kaimipono Wenger
Dave Hoffman
Frank Pasquale
Deven Desai
Danielle Citron
Lawrence Cunningham
Sarah Waldeck
Jaya Ramji-Nogales
Solangel Maldonado
Gerard Magliocca

Guests

Derek Bambauer
Gabriella Coleman
andré douglas pond cummings
David Gray
Brishen Rogers
Joseph Turow
Elizabeth A. Wilson













Previous Guests

Michael Abramowicz
Michelle Adams
Robert Ahdieh
Marvin Ammori
Michelle Anderson
Laura Appleman
Taunya Lovell Banks
Ann Bartow
Steven Bellovin
Adam Benforado
Gaia Bernstein
Francesca Bignami
Josh Blackman
Joseph Blocher
Jeremy Blumenthal
Kathleen Boozang
Bruce Boyden
Donald Braman
Al Brophy
Neil H. Buchanan
Bill Burke-White
Scott Burris
Paul Butler
Ryan Calo
Naomi Cahn
Anupam Chander
Miriam Cherry
Jack Chin
Glenn Cohen
Jennifer Collins
Caroline Mala Corbin
Thomas Crocker
Allison Danner
Brannon Denning
Deven Desai
Mike Dimino
Mark Edwards
Maxine Eichner
Jessica Erickson
David Fagundes
Lisa Fairfax
Joshua Fairfield
Christine Haight Farley
Kim Ferzan
Dan Filler
Mary Anne Franks
Michael Froomkin
Amanda Frost
Brian Frye
Timothy Glynn
Rachel Godsil
Eric Goldman
Kyle Graham
David Gray
Craig Green
Tristin Green
Jonathan Hafetz
Meredith Harbach
Michelle Harner
Jeffrey Harrison
Hosea Harvey
Erica Hashimoto
Jennifer Hendricks
Carissa Hessick
Laura Heymann
Robert Hillman
Gilbert A. Holmes
Nicole Huberfeld
Christine Hurt
Darian Ibrahim
Sherrilyn Ifill
John Ip
Shavar Jeffries
Kevin Johnson
Kristin Johnson
Jeff Jonas
Courtney Joslin
Dan Kahan
Jeffrey Kahn
Brian Kalt
Sam Kamin
Michael Kang
Chimène Keitner
Alicia Kelly
Orin Kerr
Nancy Kim
Heidi Kitrosser
Adam Kolber
Russell Korobkin
Alex Kreit
Anita S. Krishnakumar
Susan Kuo
Greg Lastowka
Sarah Lawsky
Youngjae Lee
Margaret Lewis
Erik Lillquist
Jeff Lipshaw
Jonathan Lipson
Jacqueline Lipton
Matthew Lister
Joseph Liu
Michael Madison
Kevin Noble Maillard
Solangel Maldonado
Jason Mazzone
Linda McClain
William McGeveran
Salil Mehra
Carrie Menkel-Meadow
Max Minzner
Viva Moffat
Scott Moss
Eric Muller
Jaya Ramji-Nogales
Helen Norton
Elizabeth Nowicki
Paul Ohm
Angela Onwuachi-Willing
Michael O'Shea
David Opderback
Kristen Osenga
Rafael Pardo
Marcy Peek
Eduardo Peñalver
Robert Percival
Michael J. Pitts
Marc Poirier
David Post
Amanda Pustilnik
Shruti Rana
Geoffrey Rapp
Neil Richards
Lori Ringhand
Alice Ristroph
Marc Roark
Sasha Romanosky
Tuan Samahon
Susan Scafidi
David Schraub
Paul Secunda
Jonathan Siegel
Jessica Silbey
Peter Smith
Judd Sneirson
Adam Steinman
Charles Sullivan
Rick Swedloff
Olivier Sylvain
Steph Tai
Andrew Taslitz
Robert Tsai
Jenia Turner
Steve Vladeck
Ari Waldman
Spencer Weber Waller
Howard Wasserman
Melissa Waters
Frank Wu
Alfred Yen
Corey Yung
David Zaring
Timothy Zick
Michael Zimmer
Jonathan Zittrain

Ownership

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

Blogroll

Above the Law
Access to Justice
ACS Blog
Althouse
Balkinization
Becker-Posner Blog
BlackProf
BoingBoing
Chicago Law Faculty Blog
Conglomerate
CrimLaw
Crime & Federalism
CrimProf Blog
Crooked Timber
Derechoalderecho
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
Just Books
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
TeachPrivacy 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