Many of you may have noticed in the Newsletter a comment on page 21 of
the Spring issue under checklist #7 the notation: "remember: by agreeing
to present a paper at the ALSB meeting, the author(s) is certifying that
the paper, as it is written, has not nor will have been presented at
another professional meeting."
 
Former ALSB Executive Committee member and former ABLJ editor-in-chief
Ginny Maurer queried me about this.  My response contained in part this
explanation:
 
"This 'rule' was put in to keep people from giving the identical paper
at both a regional meeting and a national meeting.  It was never
intended to preclude someone from delivering a draft version at one
meeting and then another version at the national meeting, regardless of
the 'degree' of revision."
 
However, Ginny took exception to my explanation, and for good reason, I
believe.  Here is her rationale, in part.  Comments, please.
 
 
"Frankly, I cannot figure out what is wrong with giving
the same paper at two meetings. That is, it is very common in
economics, for example, to see in the "credits" of an article, a
recitation of the various workshops, meetings, etc. where the paper
has been given in its sojourn to publication. [Maybe I have not looked
closely enough, and those are private workshops, not organizational
meetings.] Similarly, one sometimes sees that in the opening footnote of
law review articles. Indeed, I have several times given the same paper
at two different meetings. When I say "the same paper"  I mean it has
had some revision, but not necessarily much. If the basic objection can
be overcome with minor reworking of the article, as you suggest, it is
unclear how much merit underlies the basic objection.
 
On the merits of the practice of giving papers two or more times: I
do it because I put a good deal into papers. "Giving" them helps me
work out bugs, get it straight in my mind, and occasionally one picks
up a useful criticism from the participants. Rarely is there overlap
in audience. For example, I gave the paper I would like to give at
the national meeting at the MidWest meetings in Chicago in March. It
is really a very good paper. I am confident that when it gets into
print it will be in a very good outlet. In Chicago, three other people
were in the audience -- two of them were the other two paper presenters.
I may be confusing it with the other paper I gave, which was attended by
three audience members but neither of the other two paper givers or the
the moderator, none of whom showed up! It is hard to see the injury done
by giving the paper at the national meeting."
 
 
Let us know your thoughts -- Dan Herron