This further piques my interest in thinking about trying to start a journal
of law and management, perhaps jointly sponsored by the Academy of Mgt and
ALSB.
Connie
At 03:59 PM 10/28/2004 -0400, you wrote:
>For the record, I disagree with Alan, and may or may not disagree with
>Tom; for the moment I hope to play one off against the other, and duck
>away unnoticed.
>
>Much is wrong with student-run law reviews, but the Chronicle synopsis
>of Posner's article misses some of its nuances, and Posner's article is
>itself rather un-nuanced. For example, I don't think that length is a
>problem inherent to student-run journals, though it is certainly
>worsened by it. As to Alan's criticism, Posner's article doesn't
>dismiss the value of doctrinal work; indeed, it praises such
>scholarship, but says that it is becoming a more marginal part of what
>reviews publish, and that they are gravitating more toward
>interdisciplinary work.
>
>It's somewhat amusing, though, to imagine that the solution lies in
>entrusting law school faculty to preside over peer reviewed journals
>because of interdisciplinary scholarship, given that many such faculty
>are not credentialed in any traditional way in those areas -- and,
>indeed, possess no more training than the average student editor. Much
>of Posner's own work appeared in student-run reviews or in peer-reviewed
>journals administered by those without particular training in economics,
>philosophy, or literature (often founded at the University of Chicago,
>to its credit), and I think relatively little has appeared in journals
>traditionally esteemed in those fields. Either way, it looks like we
>manage to found and rely on house organs.
>
>P.S. Consider the ethics of selling copies of those free law review
>reprints that one is always receiving. And should we conclude anything
>from the market price?
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Alan Strudler [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2004 10:49 AM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: law reviews and peer review
>
>I always try to find a way to disagree, especially if Tom Dunfee is
>involved.
>
>Do we need more traditional peer reviewed journals? We have plenty. If
>one adds to that number all the student reviewed journals, we get a
>staggeringly high number of peer reviewed journals. Law reviews play a
>useful role for students. If faculty want to publish elsewhere, the
>option is now available. Let the students have their fun.
>
>I think that an assumption Posner makes is that the traditional
>doctrinal article should be banished from the presses, and that it is
>better for all articles to be disciplined based, particularly if it is
>a social science discipline. And I think that his assumption is false
>and overly scientistic. Doctrinal analysis is valuable. Reviewing it is
>labor intensive. Let the students do it.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>On Oct 28, 2004, at 8:12 AM, Steven E. Abraham wrote:
>
> > 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
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
Constance E. Bagley
Associate Professor of Business Administration
Harvard Business School
Rock Center 116
Soldiers Field
Boston MA 02163
617.495.6963 (voice)
617.496.4877 (fax)
Assistant: Mark Lamoureux
[log in to unmask]
617.496.9629
|
