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


advertise-here4


Slip Opinions


University governance as a new topic of public discussion.

An unusual profile of Mary Anne Franks (kw)

Aggressive copyright litigation run amok. (fp)

USA Today's Matt Krantz quoting me on Warren Buffett joining Twitter.  (LAC)

Private prisons? Why, sure! What could possibly go wrong? (kw)

TNR profiles Susan Crawford (kw)

Berkshire Hathaway is bigger than Warren Buffett.  Manual of Ideas (LAC).

Guns don't shoot people, kitchen appliances shoot people (kw)

Via Glom, Sat Eve Post review of The Essays of Warren Buffett.

Jack Coffee on Bad Plaintiffs' Counsel in M&A Deals and What Must Be Done to Break Them


Our Podcast

Subscribe to Law Talk


  • Posts by Author

  • Categories

  • Archives


  • Recent Comments


    • Lawrence Cunningham on Mr. Buffett Joins a Board

    • Guy Spier on Mr. Buffett Joins a Board

    • John Mihaljevic on Mr. Buffett Joins a Board

    • Kal on Towards Responsible Use of Cognition-Dulling Drugs

    • anon on The Pervasive Role of Priors: Part One

    • Joe on Kentucky: Boy, 5, Kills Sister, 2

    • mls on Copyright’s Constitutional Chameleon

    • Shag from Brookline on Kentucky: Boy, 5, Kills Sister, 2

    • Brett Bellmore on Kentucky: Boy, 5, Kills Sister, 2

    • Daniel Barth-Jones on Re-Identification Risks and Myths, Superusers and Super Stories (Part II: Superusers and Super Stories)

    • Daniel Barth-Jones on Re-Identification Risks and Myths, Superusers and Super Stories (Part I: Risks and Myths)

    • Daniel Barth-Jones on Re-Identification Risks and Myths, Superusers and Super Stories (Part II: Superusers and Super Stories)

    • Daniel Barth-Jones on Re-Identification Risks and Myths, Superusers and Super Stories (Part I: Risks and Myths)

    • Shag from Brookline on Kentucky: Boy, 5, Kills Sister, 2

    • Brett Bellmore on Kentucky: Boy, 5, Kills Sister, 2
  •  

    Site Meter

    About the Blog

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

    (Image: Wikicommons)

Farewell to the Fall Submission?

posted by Michael Kang

Not long ago, the busy month for law review submissions was August, not March.  As anyone who has been teaching law for more than six or seven years can confirm, law faculty worked on their manuscripts during summer break and had shiny new articles to send off as the fall semester approached.  There was a spring cycle as well, with law journal submissions and publication offers split reasonably evenly between the spring and fall cycles, but at one point, the fall was probably the busier one.

It’s not quite yet time to declare the death of the fall cycle for law journal submissions—many journals still will receive and accept a number of articles this month—but we’re getting close.  A nontrivial number of flagship journals didn’t open for business this fall—e.g., Duke Law Journal, Indiana Law Journal, University of Illinois Law Review, and Utah Law Review—each noting on ExpressO that they’ll begin looking at articles next in the spring.  What’s more, many of the journals open for business reserved only a handful of publication slots for this fall from last spring.  Demand during the fall for articles appears to be shrinking.

Why did this apparent shift from fall to spring cycle occur?  My guess begins with the fact that the business of legal scholarship is increasingly competitive on all ends, and after boards turn over during the spring, there are more high-quality articles than ever pouring into journal offices.  So many high-quality articles, in fact, that a top journal finds it difficult to resist filling their entire volume just from the spring submissions alone.  Of course, top journals could resist the temptation, but they may not see the point once they’ve already invested the time to read and decide on a sufficient mass of articles.  They may also fixate on the pieces in front of them rather than assume that stronger pieces will be available in the fall.  This is just a version of the “unraveling of the market” that Dave Hoffman cited to explain why the spring cycle itself seemed to be creeping up earlier and earlier.  All this hinges, of course, on the quantity and quality of spring submissions hitting a critical threshold such that journals tipped from saving slots for the fall to consuming almost all of them in the spring.  By the fall, however, journals feel constrained not to steal even more spots from the subsequent spring, because it would be taking them away from the next board of editors and next volume.

There are at least two significant costs of the migration of publication slots from fall to spring.  The first is that we may, before long, have only one cycle for submissions per calendar year—the spring.  Spring versus fall as a matter of timing isn’t a big deal, but having two cycles per year for submissions versus only one is a big deal.  If you have an article that isn’t quite ready for the spring cycle, then you would need to wait a full year for the next spring cycle to submit it.  The result is increased turnaround time between completion of the average article and its publication date.  Articles therefore become less timely on average, and scholarship takes longer to become widely disseminated in finished form.  This development would cede one relative advantage of student-run law journals over academic peer review journals—speed.

The second cost is that the spring cycle, as the only cycle, would become even more chaotic and random.  I don’t know whether authors have fully adjusted to the shift from fall to spring, but if they do, authors might submit all their work during the spring.  The obvious result is that virtually all article selection for top journals would occur in basically a couple months.  The volume of submissions would place additional stress on articles editors, and time pressures on both articles editors and authors in the competition for articles would speed up.  More articles, more decisions, compressed into a shorter period of time.


 August 14, 2012 at 3:03 pm   Posted in: Law School (Scholarship)   Print This Post Print This Post

Responses (5)

  1. JC - August 14, 2012 at 4:00 pm

    What are your thoughts about how the rise of online companion journals do to this? Those are open for submission anytime. Or are they considered sufficiently “non-prestigous” such that most law profs aren’t going to bother to submit to them?

  2. William Baude - August 14, 2012 at 4:33 pm

    Just a note, not all online companion journals are indeed “open for submission anytime.” Last December, I wrote a piece on the Jurisdiction and Venue Clarification Act, which had been enacted that same month.

    Because time was of the essence, I wanted to publish it right away, but most of the online journals I submitted it to were “full,” and wouldn’t open for submissions again until the Spring. (Kudos to the Michigan Law Review First Impressions, for publishing the piece and for not being full!)

  3. Peter - August 14, 2012 at 6:25 pm

    Besides the “online companion journals,” there is another set of journals that genuinely are “open for submission anytime” — peer reviewed journals. Of course most will not publish an article right away, and will take longer to render a decision than non-peer-reviewed journals (and most will not permit simultaneous submission). Still, if it’s a question of finishing something in May, and waiting until Feb. to send it out, then you might well get an answer from a peer reviewed journal (and be able to post it online as forthcoming), before the following Feb.

  4. JC - August 15, 2012 at 11:53 am

    Wm. Baude – thanks. But generally speaking, the online companions don’t hew to the fall/spring submission windows. In fact, many strive (at least in theory) to get quick turnarounds in order to keep the debate timely. Your caveat is appreciated, though.

  5. Anon - August 15, 2012 at 5:47 pm

    Somehow, this post leaves me feeling very old, since I remember the last time people though the Fall submission period was on the wane. Then, as part of the competitive process for obtaining high quality submissions, some law reviews realized they could get higher quality articles if they left more spots open in the Fall. After all, a few top people were still submitting then and some of them accepted with those journals because they were the only ones to make offers. Pretty soon, an equilibrium developed and the Fall became crowded again (both with submissions and reviews accepting submissions), leading more people to submit and more reviews to accept in the Spring and the cycle began again. Sometimes this process has been interrupted with periods of journals moving to early decision/exclusive submission windows just prior to both period. In any case, it is a cycle and, absent some structural change in Law schools (such as year-round school or changes in the timing of board transitions) the Fall submission period will rise once again.

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

Kelli A. Alces
Taunya Lovell Banks
Ryan Calo
Claire Hill
Jay Kesten
William McGeveran
Meredith Render
Aaron Saiger
David L. Schwartz
Olivier Sylvain
Charles K. Whitehead
Aaron Zelinsky


















Previous Guests

Michael Abramowicz
Michelle Adams
Robert Ahdieh
Marvin Ammori
Michelle Anderson
Laura Appleman
Derek Bambauer
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
Khiara Bridges
Al Brophy
Neil H. Buchanan
Bill Burke-White
Scott Burris
Paul Butler
Ryan Calo
Naomi Cahn
Anupam Chander
Miriam Cherry
Jack Chin
Glenn Cohen
Gabriella Coleman
Jennifer Collins
Caroline Mala Corbin
Thomas Crocker
andré douglas pond cummings
Allison Danner
Laura DeNardis
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
Susan Freiwald
Michael Froomkin
Amanda Frost
Brian Frye
Timothy Glynn
Rachel Godsil
Eric Goldman
Kyle Graham
David Gray
Craig Green
Tristin Green
Jonathan Hafetz
Vivian E. Hamilton
Meredith Harbach
Michelle Harner
Angela Harris
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
Tayyab Mahmud
Kevin Noble Maillard
Solangel Maldonado
Jason Mazzone
Linda McClain
William McGeveran
Salil Mehra
Carrie Menkel-Meadow
Max Minzner
Viva Moffat
Scott Moss
Eric Muller
Janai Nelson
Jaya Ramji-Nogales
Helen Norton
Elizabeth Nowicki
Paul Ohm
Angela Onwuachi-Willing
David Opderback
David Orentlicher
Michael O'Shea
Kristen Osenga
Mary-Rose Papandrea
Rafael Pardo
Marcy Peek
Eduardo Peñalver
Robert Percival
Michael J. Pitts
Marc Poirier
David Post
Amanda Pustilnik
Shruti Rana
Geoffrey Rapp
William Reynolds
Neil Richards
Lori Ringhand
Alice Ristroph
Marc Roark
Brishen Rogers
Sasha Romanosky
Tuan Samahon
Susan Scafidi
David Schleicher
David Schraub
Paul Secunda
Lea Shaver
Jonathan Siegel
Jessica Silbey
Peter Smith
Judd Sneirson
Adam Steinman
Charles Sullivan
Rick Swedloff
Peter Swire
Olivier Sylvain
Steph Tai
Andrew Taslitz
Robert Tsai
Jenia Turner
Joseph Turow
Steve Vladeck
Ari Waldman
Spencer Weber Waller
Howard Wasserman
Melissa Waters
Elizabeth A. Wilson
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
Privacy and Security Training
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