Wednesday, February 13, 2013
The Angsting Thread (Law Review Edition, Spring 2013)
Friends, the time has come when Redyip is visible. You know what that means. Feel free to use the comments to share your information (and gripes or praise) about which law reviews have turned over, which ones haven't yet, and where you've heard from, and where you've not, and what you'd like Santa to bring you this coming Xmas, etc. It's the semi-annual angsting thread for the law review submission season. Have at it. And do it reasonably nicely, pretty please. Maybe Redyip will even tweet a little this spring.
Update: here is a link to the last page of comments.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Angsting Thread (Law Review Edition, Spring 2013):
Submitted starting 2/7 thru yesterday to top 75ish. It hasn't been a week yet, and I already got dings from Michigan, Upenn, Vandy, UW, Texas and BYU.
This cycle is working out really well for me so far!
Posted by: AnonAsstProf | Feb 13, 2013 1:37:24 PM
Rejections from Michigan. Wisconsin, Harvard, Vandy, BYU and Florida. Submitted first week of February.
Posted by: Anon | Feb 13, 2013 1:49:53 PM
Do law review boards generally review Spring submissions only AFTER a board has turned? I would have assumed so, but it looks like the submission season now starts in early February and boards (I thought) generally turned over during spring break.
Also, if you you submit prior to turnover, does your submission essentially get lost into an abyss?
Posted by: turnturnturn | Feb 13, 2013 1:53:29 PM
Any time I submit, the article seems to get caught in the abyss.
Posted by: Anon | Feb 13, 2013 1:56:48 PM
I submitted at 2am today. No dings yet!
Posted by: submitted 2/13 | Feb 13, 2013 2:18:42 PM
My paper isn't ready yet. You're all making me nervous...
Posted by: anoff | Feb 13, 2013 2:20:30 PM
Anoff, I think it's still too early to submit.
Posted by: Orin Kerr | Feb 13, 2013 2:42:19 PM
i submitted to one of the t5 with an exclusive window (first time doing that, and zero expectation of success). curious whether people find that doing so leads to faster response-- maybe an actual rejection within that period rather than months later? guess i'll find out soon enough...
Posted by: vapstar! | Feb 13, 2013 2:59:57 PM
As a new board member at a top journal, I can tell you that I really appreciate getting good stuff this early. The good pieces really stand out right now. Also, It's easier to devote more time to a single piece and really think about its positives.
Posted by: editor | Feb 13, 2013 3:11:09 PM
I wonder if "editor" is a pseudonym designed to get people to submit too early into the abyss. It would seem odd that a new board member would know that good pieces stand out now relative to later, seeing that a new board member would not yet have reviewed pieces in March.
Posted by: turnturnturn | Feb 13, 2013 3:13:32 PM
I know what my journal (and other journals) have published in the past year. I measure the submissions against those articles. Anyway, you can disregard what I said if you'd like. I guess that's what I get for trying to give you a peek behind the curtain.
Posted by: editor | Feb 13, 2013 3:16:47 PM
Editor @ 3:11, please don't be dissuaded by the angstridden and suspicious among us. That type of information is indeed helpful and appreciated.
Posted by: Anon | Feb 13, 2013 3:19:22 PM
editor, will you give preference to those who are grateful?
Posted by: anoff | Feb 13, 2013 3:21:15 PM
The Case Western Reserve Law Review will elect the executive board for Volume 64 on February 22. We will turn on submissions through Expresso and Scholastica at that time. We keep the submissions off until the new board is elected so that you can be sure we are processing submissions as they come in (that is, we avoid turning it on early because that creates a massive backlog). We look forward to receiving submissions.
Posted by: Case Western Reserve Law Review | Feb 13, 2013 3:31:03 PM
This thread is already more useful than in previous cycles. Thank you to the editors (real or faux) who are posting.
Posted by: submitted 2/13 | Feb 13, 2013 3:37:32 PM
Not ready to submit yet, but a general question for the group: I am in footnote hell trying to pare down the article from 32k to an acceptable #. What is that now? Would love some guidance?
Posted by: too many words | Feb 13, 2013 3:43:40 PM
Those who have already submitted: is it true that expresso got rid of submission confirmations? If so, there will be a lot more to angst over.
Posted by: anoff | Feb 13, 2013 3:43:48 PM
Submitted to the top 60 or so (those that were accepting submissions, anyway) plus a few specialty journals on 2/1. Got an offer from a good specialty offer, expedited, and now have an offer from a top 50 journal. Have received rejections from Michigan, BYU, Vanderbilt, William and Mary, and Chicago.
Posted by: Anon | Feb 13, 2013 3:55:38 PM
I have dings from Vandy, Michigan, Chicago, and Texas.
Posted by: Wanderer | Feb 13, 2013 4:06:07 PM
I've been angsting just waiting for this thread!!!
Posted by: That Guy | Feb 13, 2013 4:07:14 PM
@Too many words--under 25,000 is the gold standard. If that's impossible, under 30,000 is much better than over.
@Anoff--yup, submission confirmations are gone. And once you get dinged from a journal, it vanishes from your "author dashboard." (So presumably you can't request an expedite or otherwise take a second bite).
Anyone know what ExpressO is now doing about number of expedites? I remember that they're somehow letting journals know how many request you've made. Is that right? Or are they actually letting journals filter out certain requests (i.e., those from lower ranked journals, or those where the author has made too many requests at once)? Any help much appreciated
Posted by: anon | Feb 13, 2013 4:07:59 PM
Too Many Words, you have 32,000 footnotes? I'm not sure what is an appropriate number for your paper -- pretty paper-specific -- but surely that is too many.
As for words, most journals now seem to ask for papers in the sweet-spot between 15,000 and 25,000.
Posted by: That Guy | Feb 13, 2013 4:10:43 PM
If 25,000 is the top end of the range, what has become the bottom end?
Posted by: too few words | Feb 13, 2013 4:16:18 PM
I lack not for verbosity, so I haven't studied the question as carefully. However, my understanding is that unless you paper is over 10,000 (and probably 12,000), you're going to need to couch it as an essay.
Posted by: That Guy | Feb 13, 2013 4:19:55 PM
@too few words, I feel like under 12k and you're in "essay" territory, but there's nothing wrong with that--it can open up more possibilities for publication. Idk if there's a length that's "too short" to be taken seriously as an article, though i'd be interested to hear whether others think there is.
Posted by: princess and the pea | Feb 13, 2013 4:19:57 PM
not 32k footnotes, just 32k words total (including fns)--or were you just kidding?
Anyway, since there is no way I'm getting this thing below 25k, I guess I will have to settle for a respectable 28k or somewhere along those lines.
Posted by: too many words | Feb 13, 2013 4:25:31 PM
If law review editors are out there, would you mind posting whether your journal is currently reviewing submissions?
I thank those in advance who have already posted in this regard.
Posted by: Wanderer | Feb 13, 2013 4:33:40 PM
Submitted 2/8-2/13. Dings from Michigan, U.Penn. and Chicago.
Posted by: profanon | Feb 13, 2013 4:35:03 PM
Thanks for the thoughts. Is there any different process for getting an "essay" published, or do you just refer to it in your cover letter as an essay? (I'm new to this game.)
Posted by: too few words | Feb 13, 2013 4:50:59 PM
Some journals have separate editors or a different box to check if you submit directly through a journal's website. I believe some journals don't publish essays. Some may publish essays under a certain cap in their online rather than print editions. But if you're doing all expresso or scholastica it probably doesn't affect your process. I published an essay last year through normal channels but under a specific essays editor.
Posted by: princess and the pea | Feb 13, 2013 4:56:12 PM
Just some anecdotal information: I originally submitted on 3/13 last year, and submitted a revised version of my article on 4/10, and got a top-20 placement. I choose to believe that the quality of the article (however that is measured) matters more than the timing of submission, within reason.
Posted by: Going Rogue | Feb 13, 2013 6:08:07 PM
My opinion is that Going Rogue is deluding him/herself, as one who waltzes into a T20 placement only can. Seriously - you cant really believe that, can you?
Posted by: Anon | Feb 13, 2013 7:30:11 PM
I fully admit to deluding myself. It preserves my sanity.
Posted by: Going Rogue | Feb 13, 2013 7:46:38 PM
Posted by: Submitted 2/13 | Feb 13, 2013 10:12:27 PM
Is everyone going with an all-or-nothing approach (submit to 50 or 100 places on the date of your choosing, even if you might submit to another 50 or 100 later) or is anyone actually taking the time to submit only to those schools where you know boards have turned over, and hold off on others? I was looking at last year's thread and noticed all through February, people were getting acceptances/rejections from some journals but finding some others had not begun reviewing submissions at this point in the year.
Posted by: vapentine | Feb 14, 2013 2:31:08 AM
Michigan acknowledges receipt on day one saying they will study the piece over the coming 12 weeks.
The next day, Michigan emails a rejection.
Posted by: Ian Smith | Feb 14, 2013 2:41:18 AM
Submitted to the open T100 between 2/3-2/13 (To Harvard, exclusively, two weeks earlier).
Thus far dings from Harvard, Texas, Michigan and Vandy. One T40 sent me a direct confirmation email (not through Expresso). I thought this was very nice.
Other than that - silence.
Posted by: ILlaw | Feb 14, 2013 3:30:55 AM
Submitted to the top 60-ish journals on Feb. 4. So far, rejections from Chicago, Texas, and Michigan (and yes Ian I had that same 2 emails 12 hours apart too -- very mean!) Otherwise, complete silence.
Posted by: Westie | Feb 14, 2013 9:52:16 AM
@vapentine - That just seems like a ton of work, to figure out who is where with their board process. That's another reason I am aiming for the second week of March--let everything settle. And the rest I leave up to the fates, because I am lazy. Also, my article is not ready to submit yet, which is probably the #1 reason I am waiting and justifying it as some sort of strategy or principle.
Posted by: Going Rogue | Feb 14, 2013 10:08:33 AM
Submitted to top 50 in late Jan/early Feb. So far rejections from Vanderbilt, Chicago and Michigan.
Posted by: Anon | Feb 14, 2013 10:12:00 AM
Ian and Westie, in fairness to Michigan, they are always fast in their decisions, and a fast Michigan rejection does not necessarily mean that they based it on letterhead. I have an instance where I know (though avenues that shall not be disclosed) they did a full read of my article, and the rejection still came in two days.
Posted by: anonprof | Feb 14, 2013 10:23:29 AM
Got another top 50 offer today.
Posted by: Anon Feb 13, 2013 3:55:38 PM | Feb 14, 2013 1:16:48 PM
Submitted 2/4-2/13 (and am still submitting as journals open up). Michigan and Texas rejections. Top 50 offer. Most (not all) of the boards seem to have turned over. A friend who has multiple top 15 placements tells me he submits 2/1.
Posted by: Not too early | Feb 14, 2013 2:32:18 PM
The limited, second-hand, anecdotal evidence appears to be that the article (and maybe author identity) is perhaps a more important indicator than date. I'm shocked! Of course, not having any offers yet makes me wonder about both... :) I also take pride in joining Orin Kerr as the only other professor to post non-anonymously. I'm not sure what people are afraid of here...
Posted by: Michael Risch | Feb 14, 2013 4:02:51 PM
At least last year, the claim was that posting here non-anonymously would hurt you before an entry levels job committee. Or before the editorial board. Doesn't track for me, but I guess it's the prawfs norm.
Submitted this week to some journals. I tend to think that a rejection from the california law review will be coming soon.
Posted by: dave hoffman | Feb 14, 2013 5:02:34 PM
IMO, carrying off the scholar persona requires a bit of bravado and not admitting to vulnerability; I think this forum is anonymous so that folks can air their vulnerability (not knowing about how aspects of the process work, sharing doubts and fears) a little more comfortably. And there is a spectrum of participants, from tenured professors to untenured professors to practitioners to adjuncts just embarking on their scholarly career. For example. Accordingly, people have different levels of vulnerability and need for cloaking.
Posted by: Going Rogue | Feb 14, 2013 5:13:12 PM
Dave, I'd guess that getting an offer from the Cal Law Review is more likely than getting a refund from Scholastica on that submission.
As for posting anonymously, I've been a bit uncomfortable with this because it doesn't seem to fit the academic model. That said, discussion on these threads benefits from candor as much, if not more, than it suffers from anonymity. The real question seems to be whether there is a supported basis for the belief that what is said in this forum could negatively affect article placement or job opportunities.
Posted by: Brad Greenberg | Feb 14, 2013 5:48:13 PM
Some of us are intensely careful about our online-message-board footprint after living through things like the xoxohth litigation. No, I don't think posting that I can't decide whether to submit 1-50 then 50-100 or vice versa will make my colleagues think less of me, but neither did I think posting on a message board about law school acceptances would prompt the kind of aggression it did. Who knows who is lurking, and who can criticze those of use who prefer to use pseudonyms when we're engaging in a format like this?
Posted by: vapentine | Feb 14, 2013 5:55:11 PM
Dings: California and Penn.
Posted by: Anon | Feb 14, 2013 6:20:51 PM
Submitted to top 100 (those that are accepting submissions). Dinged at Michigan, Duke, and Vanderbilt.
Posted by: anon6 | Feb 14, 2013 6:47:44 PM
Another Michigan rejection here, same deal, within 12 hours. Otherwise, silence, submitted Monday
Posted by: Anon | Feb 14, 2013 6:49:25 PM
Could the people with T50 (or even T100) offers list the journals? I understand the general wish to remain anonymous, but I don't see the individual harm in doing this particular thing, and it would be very helpful for those of us tracking who exactly is reviewing. Thanks!
Posted by: anon | Feb 14, 2013 7:14:14 PM
I submitted at the end of the first week of February, got an acceptance from a top-100ish LR less than a week later. Send in my expedite requests, which garnered very few acknowledgements.
I feel as if submitting early may have hurt me in the expedite game, but on the other hand I didn't get any offers at all for the piece in the Fall, so it's better than nothing. Might get an offer this weekend and I'll keep playing the game.
Posted by: anonno | Feb 14, 2013 9:32:08 PM
Submitted 2/7. Dings from Michigan, BYU, Texas, Chicago. Otherwise radio silence.
Posted by: Anotheranon | Feb 15, 2013 1:14:13 PM
Has anyone used the feature of ExpressO where you agree to let them "verify" expedites? I have, and I am wondering how this works. Do you get any sort of notification when ExpressO has completed the verification?
Posted by: Not too early | Feb 15, 2013 1:16:30 PM
I allowed Expresso to try to confirm the offer, but considering my experiences with law review editors I suspect few if any will actually get confirmed (and, of course, it is in their interests not to confirm as well). My question, independent of "Not too early"'s, is whether a failure to confirm by editors would be incorrectly perceived as nonexistant? Because if so, I would prefer just to refuse confirmation attempts.
Posted by: Anon | Feb 15, 2013 1:26:19 PM
Submitted 2/10. Dings from Michigan and Texas.
Posted by: AnonAnon | Feb 15, 2013 2:05:20 PM
If you can figure out when the turnover is at the journal you're interested in, I actually see an advantage to submitting as soon as possible afterwards as, at least for some, the old masthead will help the new understand what to look for and the like. Abyss avoided and chance for better review increased.
Posted by: editor | Feb 15, 2013 2:38:28 PM
Submitted 2/1. Ding from William & Mary. Personal confirmation of receipt from about 4 of 50 places where I submitted.
Posted by: the dude | Feb 15, 2013 6:02:33 PM
In this report, Michigan leads the league in dings by far with 15; Chicago, Texas, Vanderbilt are tied for second, showing 7.
Posted by: Ian Smith | Feb 15, 2013 6:33:35 PM
Here's a bit of data from a non-anonymous. I offer it as a service.
I submitted roughly Feb. 1 on ExpressO and Scholastica. I was fairly discriminating - top 75ish general law reviews and the business law journals of the T14. Got an offer Feb. 8 from the Berkeley Business Law Journal, which fit my initial criteria. It had a short window, because it looks to me (my supposition, not something I was told) that this will go in the old board's last issue, rather than the new board's first. I like to get 'em placed and move on. A couple rejections provoked by the expedite (I told BBLJ that if I didn't take its offer, it would obvious why). Now it has a home, I've withdrawn from all the other ones, so the spots are available for others, and I move on.
One other observation. I don't think my letterhead carries a lot of influence. I think it's worth giving some credit to the students who appreciate what I have to say without the proxy of another review having acted first. In other words, I'm grateful to the first offer, and have tended to be loyal to it, even when I have other options. What it means, however, is that I try to avoid submitting to stalking horses.
I believe the behavioralists would call me a satisficer rather than a maximizer. But in this system I'm not at all sure what I'd be maximizing! So I look for satisfaction.
Posted by: Jeff Lipshaw | Feb 15, 2013 7:35:37 PM
Jeff: That is EXTREMELY generous of you.
Posted by: Ian Smith | Feb 15, 2013 8:21:41 PM
My guess, based on my experience and others' posts, is that up to this point less than ten of the top 100 journals have been functioning, which a) probably makes it foolish to have submitted earlier and b) raises the question why the vast majority of journals flipped their Expresso/Scholastica switch to the on position a couple of weeks ago, when they were not prepared to begin reviewing submissions and do expedites.
I submitted one article at the very beginning of February and another a week later, each one to most of the top 60 plus a half dozen specialty journals (two different specialties). On the first I got an offer from a main journal at a school in the mid-40s, on the other an offer from a specialty journal. I submitted expedite requests to about 25 journals for each, with a week's time for one and three days for the other. The deadline for the expedites came and went with absolutely no response -- no acknowledgment, no ding, no acceptance, nothing -- from all but one or two journals for each article. One response I got was from Tulane saying they will not review any manuscripts till March 1. So why has Tulane been accepting submissions on Expresso for over a week already?? In addition to confusing authors, they will probably hava a mess on their hands when they do open for business, trying to figure out which submissions are still alive, fielding communications from authors who want to confirm that their previously-submitted article will receive consideration, etc..
And while I'm venting... how do the Scholastica deviants get away with making authors pay two and a half times as much as Expresso charges, when Expresso is a better service?
Posted by: midlev | Feb 15, 2013 10:49:28 PM
Submitted to 41 journals today, something like T40 +/-, in that (a) I never send to Harvard, Yale or Stanford because they make it too difficult and have poor judgment across the broader range of papers; (b) submit to only 1-2 of the 12 specialty journals in the field because only those are really reliable and reputable (not those associated with the schools just listed); and (c) never submit to a journal where I would not be happy to publish because I may well end up there and journals are not pawns in a game. This is not a game.
Posted by: no name | Feb 16, 2013 7:56:03 AM
no name - it's only poor judgment if they don't accept your article. If they do, then they're brilliant!
I agree with Jeff that I highly value the first offer. My last three submissions have all gone to the first offer, and at some point when the cachet of placement is not as important to me as it is now, I am going to commit to as much when I submit.
Posted by: Michael Risch | Feb 16, 2013 8:09:38 AM
Michael: Re H, Y and St,, I wouldn't know, I've never submitted to those three, partly because of their special rules and partly because of my assessment, which is based on what I have read in those journals over the years.
Posted by: no name | Feb 16, 2013 8:23:04 AM
For law&econ. papers, what are the recommended specialty journals?
Posted by: John Levi | Feb 16, 2013 11:04:22 AM
With "no name" that each of us may have reasons for avoiding some schools or journals, for various reasons. For instance, I will never submit anything to any NYU journal because of the harm that University has done to Greenwich Village in the past two decades.
Posted by: Sista | Feb 16, 2013 12:01:29 PM
Rejections from Georgetown, Colorado, and Minnesota off a top 50 expedite request.
Posted by: Anon | Feb 16, 2013 12:25:33 PM
Anon 12:25:33 Sorry to hear of those three. Is Colorado so much up the chain compared to the top 50 offer? I though Colorado is best classified as T50.
Posted by: Re Anon | Feb 16, 2013 1:55:08 PM
@John Levi, if you want a student-review, submit the paper to Yale Jreg.
Expresso also offers all the following, but most of them are quite low-ranked:
Business Law Review (Florida State University)
DePaul University Business & Commercial Law Journal
Fordham Journal of Corporate & Financial Law
Georgetown Journal of Law & Public Policy
Journal of Law, Business and Ethics
Journal of Law, Economics & Policy
Journal of Legal Metrics
Mississippi Sports Law Review
Rutgers Business Law Journal (Rutgers Newark)
St. John's Journal of Civil Rights and Economic Development
Wake Forest Journal of Business & Intellectual Property Law
Posted by: IlLaw | Feb 16, 2013 3:18:55 PM
Midlev--You're surely right that lots of journals aren't up and running yet, but I think you understate the extent to which journals have been active in the first couple of weeks of February. Based just on reports on this thread, we know that the following T20 journals have been active (at least in dinging): Michigan, Duke, Vandy, Chicago, Texas, Harvard, Penn, Georgetown, and Minnesota. I can add California based on personal knowledge. That's half of T20. Unless we assume that the rest of T100 is slower on average than T20, there should be a good number of journals already at work. This doesn't speak to whether it's strategically optimal to submit this early, but it's my sense that closer to half than ten percent come out of hibernation first week or two of February.
Posted by: Submissive | Feb 16, 2013 8:07:49 PM
Thanks, Submissive. That's somewhat reassuring, especially as I've had so few dings. NYU just started up, Yale earlier this week. My expedite requests were in the 20-50 range, and journals in that range do appear to be starting up later on average. Another data point: I received an acknowledgment from Wash U last night that said "we are not accepting submissions at this time."
Posted by: midlev | Feb 16, 2013 8:22:20 PM
Univ of Washington ding this afternoon.
Posted by: Submitted 2/13 | Feb 16, 2013 9:21:10 PM
Check your "inactive" boxes in Expresso. One law review dinged me without bothering sending an e-mail (and yes, I do check my Junk Mail folder every day). I discovered it looking through my "inactive" box, and noted my article has been rejected. Not nice.
And while at it, don't forget to check your Junk Mail folders.
Posted by: AnonAsstProf | Feb 16, 2013 9:31:24 PM
Yes, I discovered an unknown ding from Washington L Rev that way. It might actually be preferable; it had less sting for me than a form rejection email. Even better would be a personalized email telling me they agonized over it and wished they had just one more slot for me...
Posted by: midlev | Feb 16, 2013 10:08:46 PM
Ding from Washington tonight and, after reading here checked my inactive box - a stealth ding there too. At least my experience is tracking with others!
Posted by: Anon | Feb 16, 2013 10:39:26 PM
Same story here with Washington. Classy. Here's a novel thought: how about ExpressO sends authors an automatic message if an article goes from the Active to the Inactive box? I hear there's a company that starts with an S that facilitates this sort of thing...
Posted by: anon | Feb 16, 2013 10:59:26 PM
Got a form response from Tulane today in response to an expedite request stating that they won't begin review until March 1. No such message in response to my initial submission on 2/12 via Expresso.
Posted by: anon | Feb 17, 2013 8:22:41 AM
Watch your Inactive folders for Utah stealth dings. I guess at least it's better if they end up there than if journals don't notify us of rejections at all.
@anon 8:22:41: I can confirm the same pattern here for Tulane.
Posted by: anon | Feb 17, 2013 1:24:11 PM
What "inactive" folder? Where is that? I've been submitting for years, and I don't know what some people are talking about?
Posted by: anon | Feb 17, 2013 6:52:40 PM
Anon at 6:52 - go to manage my submissions on Expresso, look to the left pull down menu, it will say Active and Inactive. Click on Inactive, a list of all journals who have rejected your article comes up. Some may have emailed you, others are just sitting there, stealth.
Posted by: Anon | Feb 17, 2013 7:07:29 PM
Anon @ 6:52 - This is the first cycle with the "inactive" folder and without the confirmation of receipt.
And FWIW, I prefer the stealth rejections to radio silence.
Posted by: Meh | Feb 17, 2013 9:07:01 PM
Submitted early last week to T60. Email dings from Chicago, Michigan, and Texas. Stealth ding from Utah. Otherwise silence.
Posted by: anon | Feb 17, 2013 10:08:58 PM
Anyone know whether Chicago tells you that they've farmed your article out for peer review? Thanks!
Posted by: anon | Feb 18, 2013 12:00:33 AM
Anyone have any indication whether Stanford is up and running for the season/actively reviewing?
Posted by: taster's choice moment | Feb 18, 2013 12:08:41 AM
Submitted to 70 journals on Thursday. Today, nice ding email from UPenn, and stealth "inactive" box ding from Utah.
Posted by: Herp Derp | Feb 18, 2013 12:18:25 AM
Meh, thanks. I got it now on the "inactive" folder.
Posted by: anon | Feb 18, 2013 1:14:55 AM
I submitted Feb 13, and all journals are still listed as "active" on ExpressO. I just realized my submission was in Word 2007 format, rather than the Word 1997-2004 compatible format. Is this a fatal error on my part, or have most law journals already downloaded the word 2007 converter software? Should I start contacting law reviews with the compatible Word version of the manuscript? Would appreciate advice.
Posted by: newbie | Feb 18, 2013 6:46:10 AM
Ding from Florida.
Posted by: Anon | Feb 18, 2013 6:48:10 AM
Newbie: I wouldn't worry about it. I sent mine in 2007 too.
Posted by: Anon | Feb 18, 2013 7:10:23 AM
Taster's Choice: Yes, Stanford is reviewing. Newbie: Word 2007 is fine.
Posted by: anon | Feb 18, 2013 7:50:58 AM
I submitted Feb. 13 and have received similar dings as the crowd here: Michigan, Utah, Texas, Penn, BYU, and Houston. Starting to get nervous - how long before one generally gets an acceptance?
Posted by: Anon | Feb 18, 2013 8:47:56 AM
Dings from Georgetown, GW and Yale over the w/e and this morning.
Posted by: AnonAsstProf | Feb 18, 2013 9:10:07 AM
Anon @ 8:47, review time varies widely by journal. Generally, unless you have a pattern of top 20 placements or you submitted to some specialty journals at unranked schools, it's going to take more than five days to get an offer of acceptance.
Posted by: Brad Greenberg | Feb 18, 2013 9:46:05 AM
Last spring I waited six weeks for a really good placement. Go outside and play--it may be awhile.
Posted by: Steve-0 | Feb 18, 2013 10:21:28 AM
@AnonAsstProf: Sorry to hear. When did you submit? Also, was this off of expedite or regular?
Posted by: anon | Feb 18, 2013 11:34:12 AM
Posted by: Anon | Feb 18, 2013 11:36:12 AM
Another Duke ding here. Must be going around.
Posted by: anon | Feb 18, 2013 11:42:06 AM
Anon with Duke Ding, when did you submit?
Posted by: newfirstyrprof | Feb 18, 2013 11:42:10 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.