I cannot criticize his thesis. I would go a step further and suggest that
law schools ought to draw on resources outside the their own law faculty
(economists, sociologists, psychologists, literary critics, statisticians,
etc.) for review of interdisciplinary work, at least as advisors. I think
that has been done on the ABLJ when that is appropriate.

But does the faculty want to do the work to put out a journal? Will the
brightest and the best law students work on a law review without
decision-making authority, just as free labor for the faculty law review?
Maybe they would if there were not alternative, but it would be pretty rough
going initially as the faculty "took over". I suspect many law reviews would
just shut down.

Another thought: I am not aware of any "A" journals in the business
disciplines that are produced by the faculty of a single business school.
They are disciplinary efforts supported by national or international
organizations. The ABLJ is an example. It would be worthwhile to ponder why
this is the dominant model.

Ginny


----- Original Message -----
From: "Steven E. Abraham" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2004 8:12 AM
Subject: Re: law reviews and peer review


> Can anyone really disagree?
>
> Dunfee, Thomas wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >________________________________
> >
> >
> >
> >The following was in today's online edition of the Chronicle of Higher
Education.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >MAGAZINES & JOURNALS
> >
> >
> >
> >A glance at the November/December issue of "Legal Affairs":
> >
> >Fixing what's wrong with law reviews
> >
> >
> >
> >Law reviews use an editorial process that is "strange, even
> >
> >incomprehensible, to scholars in other fields," says Richard A.
> >
> >Posner, a senior lecturer at the University of Chicago's law
> >
> >school and a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh
> >
> >Circuit.
> >
> >
> >
> >The journals are generally edited by students, have large
> >
> >staffs, and do not use peer review. They are published
> >
> >bimonthly, or more frequently, and are "seemingly unconstrained
> >
> >in length," he writes.
> >
> >
> >
> >The system evolved when legal scholarship was more a
> >
> >professional activity than an academic one, he says, but now
> >
> >that the character of legal scholarship has changed, the
> >
> >weaknesses in the law-review system have become "both more
> >
> >conspicuous and more harmful."
> >
> >
> >
> >Legal scholars increasingly use insights from other disciplines
> >
> >in analyzing law, and student editors are typically not
> >
> >knowledgeable enough in those fields to provide editing
> >
> >suggestions of much quality. But the quantity of time and staff
> >
> >that the law reviews do possess allows them to "torment the
> >
> >author with stylistic revisions," he writes.
> >
> >
> >
> >The result, he says, is that "too many articles are too long,
> >
> >too dull, and too heavily annotated, and that many
> >
> >interdisciplinary articles are published that have no merit at
> >
> >all."
> >
> >
> >
> >Ideally, the solution would be for law schools to "take back"
> >
> >their journals and give faculty members the primary editorial
> >
> >duties, relegating students to tasks like checking citations.
> >
> >But the current system is so valuable for training law students,
> >
> >and for identifying particularly talented ones, that such a
> >
> >reform, he says, is "too much to hope for."
> >
> >
> >
> >The article, "Against the Law Reviews," is online at
> >
> >http://www.legalaffairs.org/issues/November-December-2004/review_
> >
> >posner_novdec04.html
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>