- Concurring Opinions - http://www.concurringopinions.com -
Posted By Dave Hoffman On February 13, 2013 @ 9:14 am In Law School (Law Reviews) | 13 Comments
This year, in addition to ExpressO , email, website submission, Redyip , and printed copies, we’ve a new way to deliver our articles to their ultimate masters: Scholastica . You may have learned  about Scholastica when your favorite law review wrote you to inform you that they were exclusively taking submissions through that system, or when your associate dean told you that the institution would prefer not to pay pay more per submission than ExpressO for a substantially similar service.
Here are some key things you might not know:
I think Scholastica might be a good deal for journals – it takes care of publishing problems, and it will significantly reduce the flow of submissions. I can also see why graduate students from other disciplines would find our tiny corner of the world to be odd. But I don’t see why anyone would ever submit through their system unless absolutely forced to, especially when they appear determined to import some unattractive aspects of other disciplines into legal academic publishing, which is already quite ugly.
What I don’t particularly understand is why faculty of the institutions running law reviews which are now exclusive to Scholastica are permitting this radical turn, which almost certainly will result in more concentration of prestige publication in the hands of prestige authors (who have the money to pay for multiple submissions at $5.00 each). Er. Reading that sentence again, I guess I understand after all.
That all said, Scholastica, please don’t lose my submission to NYU! I’ve never even gotten a rejection from those folks – maybe this year you can gin one up?
Article printed from Concurring Opinions: http://www.concurringopinions.com
URL to article: http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2013/02/against-scholastica.html
URLs in this post:
 agonizing: http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2012/03/the-tragedy-of-anonymous-comment-threads.html
 thread: http://prawfsblawg.blogs.com
 ExpressO: http://law.bepress.com/expresso/
 Redyip: https://twitter.com/GreatBirdRedyip
 Scholastica: https://www.scholasticahq.com
 learned: http://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/prawfsblawg/2012/07/scholastica.html
 hostile: http://blog.scholasticahq.com/post/37335834995/6-specific-ways-scholastica-helps-legal-scholarship
 none of the developers : https://www.scholasticahq.com/about_us
 things: http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2007/11/it_wouldnt_have.html
 defense: http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2009/09/a-dispositive-defense-of-student-law-reviews.html
 multiple-submission: http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2006/05/another_data_po_1.html
 system: http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2012/09/legal-peer-review-journals-time-to-rejectacceptrr.html
 post on this topic: http://joshblackman.com/blog/2013/02/11/journals-on-scholastica-ask-authors-to-submit-demographic-information-for-diversity-initiatives/
 : http://madisonian.net/2012/08/03/new-journal-platforms/
 : http://goo.gl/6DOFJ
 : http://bclawreview.org/submissions
 : http://www.californialawreview.org/information/submissions/articles
 : http://www.cardozolawreview.com/submissions.html
 : http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/submissions/
 : http://www.uiowa.edu/~ilr/contact.shtml
 : http://www.nyulawreview.org/submissions
 : http://weblaw.usc.edu/why/students/orgs/lawreview/submissions.cfm
 : http://lawreview.uchicago.edu/page/submissions
 : http://lawreview.law.ucdavis.edu/submissions.html
 : https://vimeo.com/59165083
Copyright © 2010 Concurring Opinions. All rights reserved.