TaxProf Blog

Editor: Paul L. Caron, Dean
Pepperdine University School of Law

Monday, January 23, 2006

Student-Edited Law Reviews v. Peer-Reviewed Journals

In Three Cheers for Law Reviews, Dan Solove (George Washington) argues that the current system of student-edited law reviews may be preferable to a system of peer-reviewed journals in law:

Law reviews get little respect both within and outside the legal academy. For those unfamiliar with the system, legal academics publish their articles in law reviews, which are edited and run by law students. Law students select the articles, not professors. In contrast, journals in most other fields are peer reviewed and edited. The conventional wisdom is that it is immensely silly and problematic to have students selecting and editing our articles. But while I have many gripes about the current system, there are actually many virtues to the law review approach that are not being stated. So I aim to be contrarian and (ironically) defend the status quo.

Dan suggests that student-edited law reviewes may be superior to peer-reviewed journals in three areas:

  1. Article Selection
  2. Article Content
  3. Submission Process and Editing

Scholarship | Permalink

TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Student-Edited Law Reviews v. Peer-Reviewed Journals: