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