Tagged: law review

0

Stanford Law Review, 65.1 (2013)

Stanford Law Review

Volume 65 • Issue 1 • January 2013

Articles
Removal as a Political Question
Aziz Z. Huq
65 Stan. L. Rev. 1

Putting Desert in its Place
Christopher Slobogin & Lauren Brinkley-Rubinstein
65 Stan. L. Rev. 77

A Clinic’s Place in the Supreme Court Bar
Jeffrey L. Fisher
65 Stan. L. Rev. 137

Notes
Counterfactual Contradictions: Interpretive Error in the Analysis of AEDPA
Amy Knight Burns
65 Stan. L. Rev. 203

10

Overcoming Articles Adversity

 

There’s a persistent theme in legal academia that certain types of articles, written by certain types of professors, are disadvantaged come submissions season. Is that correct? Well, yes. But the commonly articulated pitfalls — non-sexy topic choice and letterhead bias — can be mitigated considerably.  Below, I’ll give my impression of the lay of the land, and some tips for reducing their impact as much as possible.

Read More

11

Ask an Articles Editor!

First of all, I want to thank all of the folks here at Concurring Opinions for agree to have me aboard this month. I’ve been a reader of this blog since it began, and have long appreciated its contributions to the legal blogosphere. In particular, I’ve very much enjoyed the symposium that ran for the first week of the month — so much so that I delayed this post in order to stay out of its hair!

As noted in my introduction post, I’m going to be starting my very first academic gig in a few weeks (I’m actually moving to Champaign on Monday). So part of my guest-blogging stint may focus on some very early “new prof” thoughts and questions. And part of it may be the usual scholarship/academic fare.

But the hook I used to dupe convince the good hosts of this blog to invite me this month was the fact that, up until a few month ago, I was an Articles Editor at The University of Chicago Law Review. And I figured, while I have my first real experience on the submissions side of the law review game, there are probably a lot of people who have questions about what I imagine remains quite an opaque process inside our “hallowed” offices. Some folks were lucky enough to be Articles Editors in law school themselves, but many folks were not so fortunate to have that inside scoop, and even the ex-AEs among us might like an update on what’s trending inside the law review office. I know that are a lot of repeated concerns about things like letterhead bias, topic issues, gender and racial matters, making your piece stand out, expedite tactics, etc., and while most of the (generally good) advice I’ve seen comes from professors speaking from long experience submitting pieces, I think speaking in the voice of an Articles Editor could help complete more of the puzzle.

So consider this open season to ask me anything. I’ll do my best to answer openly and frankly (my boss last year, James Tierney, did a similar thing with an international law focus at Opinio Juris a few months ago, but I’m aiming at a more general audience). Obviously, there are limits to what I can reveal — particular insofar as they touch on specific decisions we made — but I think there is a lot of room to cast some light. I’ll read over and organize the questions over the weekend and the move, and then I’ll put up a post with answers early next week.