I confess to not having read the full Posner article. On the basis of
other things of his I have read, my impression is that, contrary to
what Sawaine says, Posner does not much value traditional doctrinal
scholarship, an approach many law-and-economics scholars dismiss as
"case crunching". I would like to see law reviews do more doctrinal
work.


On Oct 28, 2004, at 3:59 PM, Swaine, Edward 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>