« Judge Leinenweber loves him some universal injunctions | Main | Investigations »

Saturday, July 28, 2018

Submission Angsting Fall 2018

This is the post to share information or ask questions about submitting to law reviews.

The comments can be used to share information, complaints, praise, etc. about which journals you have heard from, which you have not, and so forth.

Additionally, a spreadsheet to gather information is here (and embedded below).

I won't update or watch the spreadsheet. You can go ahead and add your own information by going to the spreadsheet here. The spreadsheet is editable by anyone, except that a few columns and a row (the ones highlighted in yellow) are locked, either because they auto-calculate or because tampering with them has caused a problem in the past. (If something about them needs to be changed post a comment, and I will change them.) As more information is added, I will do some pointless data calculations on subsequent sheets.

Entering information in the column entitled "Username" is of course totally optional, but a way to make keeping track easier. For example, if you pick a username, you will easily be able to sort by your entries and update them, instead of trying to remember what day you submitted and sorting that way. This also adds information -- showing, for example, that all of the entries on the spreadsheet come from one person, or from lots of people, etc. At any rate, totally optional, and simply a way to add more information.

Rostron & Levit's extremely helpful guide to submitting to law reviews is available here (this is the July 2018 version). The article now also includes hyperlinks to law review websites.

Comments now appear from newest to oldest.

Posted by Sarah Lawsky on July 28, 2018 at 07:07 PM | Permalink


@NewProf: What about Texas, cal, Vandy, northwestern, and Penn? Are they done too, do you think?

Posted by: Rejectmealready | Aug 26, 2018 7:40:00 PM

I believe it is winding down. More and more journals are closing down. I think we're yet to see a few offers from the late-openers - Fordham, GW, and Cornell, but I don't think there's much activity otherwise.

Posted by: NewProf | Aug 26, 2018 6:52:25 PM

Are we thinking this season is winding down? Haven't got any really good nibbles and I'm not even hearing rejections at this point...

Posted by: Anon | Aug 26, 2018 6:49:54 PM

Congratulations, earlysubmit!

Posted by: Anon | Aug 26, 2018 6:31:09 PM

@Earlysubmit, congratulations and thanks for being so thoughtful with your feedback!

Posted by: Thank you | Aug 26, 2018 4:46:31 PM

I am out with a T30 offer, which I am happy with. In keeping with my observations prior cycles, not being rejected by heavy rejection journals appears to have not meant anything: one such journal who had my article for over a month never even responded to my expedite (despite being very heavily represented on the spreadsheet). Good luck to all the people still angsting!

Posted by: Earlysubmit | Aug 26, 2018 4:37:42 PM

Nothing here. Am waiting to hear from 14 (of 18 open) T20 journals to which I submitted between 8/10 and 8/13. Saw movement on lists back in the halcyon days of refresh addiction, and now nada. Several of these journals have rejected others, but many have done nothing apparent.

Posted by: Anon | Aug 26, 2018 3:22:26 PM

Have the previously mentioned "cascades" started? All I've got is radio silence.

Posted by: sickofsilence | Aug 26, 2018 2:37:58 PM

How long are people getting to respond to their offers at this point? I understand this varies from journal to journal, but does it also vary depending on where we are in the cycle?

Posted by: Timing | Aug 26, 2018 12:01:28 PM

Congratulations to the person with the Wash. L. Rev. offer! Did you get a notice of committee review or hear out of the blue?

Posted by: Washington | Aug 26, 2018 11:18:54 AM

Experienced: I'm not lashing out. My primary cycle has been over for some time (I did quite well). I'm just trying to get a bit of info on a second article I put out, and decided to make my thoughts known on the previous conversation. It seems that was a mistake.

I wrote a long response, but decided to delete it because what's the point, right? Those sentiments are, by and large, why we have this system and why this system is going to remain in place.

Posted by: YesterdayIKilledAMammoth | Aug 26, 2018 11:04:31 AM

Looks like today's going to be a big day on the spreadsheet. Yikes.

Posted by: verynoisy | Aug 26, 2018 10:37:55 AM

YIKAM, This is a tough process for us all, but I don't think it does any of us any good to lash out, particularly at the students or journals. First, we don't pay law journals money to reject us. They aren't making money off of us and will put in a tremendous amount of hours to take our articles to publication over the coming months. Second, we pay scholastica to deliver our articles. Critique their pricing as you will. As for refunds for them for not monitor their lists or whatever. It seems their pricing is steep to me, but the journals are not to blame. Third, a lot of students don't have the confidence to outright reject. There are a lot of maybes. I liken this to being on the hiring committee of my law school. There are a ton of great applicants out there and a relatively small percentage who clearly are not. There were a lot of people who we didn't extend interview to or give call backs to who I did not give up on until the entire process was over. I would have been happy, and in fact have tried real hard, to bring those folks in later after we did not land our first round of top choices.

Yes, I am sure there are obvious rejects that get no notice from law journals. But I don't think they are just being lazy.

Posted by: experienced anon | Aug 26, 2018 8:42:08 AM

Does anybody have any information on whether the international law journals are offering?

re: the above discussion,

the system is terrible;

Scholastica is a racket;

journals should have to refund every no-response. people are basically paying $6.50 to be rejected. the least an "editor" (they're children for crying out loud) can do is take the half second to click a box;

i have no idea who thought this was a good idea or why the profession stands for it.

Posted by: YesterdayIKilledAMammoth | Aug 26, 2018 2:14:10 AM

Bump on the above question. And what's the theory on the scholastica emails. are they not coming out in the morning anymore? the silence is getting to me.

Posted by: rejectmealready | Aug 26, 2018 12:12:19 AM

Has anyone heard lately from: Harvard (ha), Chicago, NYU, Penn, Cal, Texas, Vandy, or USC? Sorta quiet from these T20 schools.

Posted by: eerilyquiet | Aug 25, 2018 9:56:06 PM

This cycle I received 2 offers and 3-4 dings off 40 email submissions from about Aug 12. I dropped a line in the email that I wouldn’t use an acceptance to expedite. It was a geographic specific piece from law school so I am happy with the T120 placement. Maybe people should note in the spreadsheet if the response was from an email submission. Likley some schools are more receptive then others.

Posted by: BarPending | Aug 25, 2018 6:55:12 PM


How have you fared with email? For the purpose of avoiding Scholastica, I made a fair amount of email submissions this time too. I received one offer from an email submisson but am not confident the majority were reviewed (which is actually the same state of affairs of as my Scholastica submissions, many of which were also not reviewed, yet cost $6.50 per).

Posted by: anonanon | Aug 25, 2018 6:31:22 PM

Reading all these frustrating comments about Scholastica makes me glad I only submit to journals that accept email submissions.

Posted by: BarPending | Aug 25, 2018 6:19:22 PM

I would applaud more action from student reviewers. But if the change has to come from the journals, then I worry that it will never change. Law reviews aren't monolithic entities; rather, they consist of students who are there for two years max. And here's no incentive for them to do more work during their tenure, even if would make the system as a whole more fair. Plus the change would have to be endorsed by the ones at the top -- who have the least incentives to do more, because the system works well for them right now. What a mess of misaligned incentive structures!

Posted by: angsty | Aug 25, 2018 4:25:44 PM

So we'll never have the transparency for which many are advocating. While I hear the concerns that, because of asymmetrical information, we'll never know of our lost opportunities (not knowing if a top journal really is very interested in one of our articles). But consider, right now, journals can and do tell us that they're very interested in our articles. For instance, "We're very interested in your article and would like to bring it to a full board vote, can you get more time on your offer?" Also, secondary journals tell you all the time that they're starting to review your article. My point is that the law reviews have every opportunity right now to be more open and transparent via personal messages. So the lack of transparency is more driven by the law reviews than Scholastica.

Posted by: AnonProf---- | Aug 25, 2018 2:52:38 PM

plusone - good point. More transparency would mean that lower ranked journals will receive less submissions and won't be as inclined to work exclusively with Scholastica.

Posted by: NewProf | Aug 25, 2018 2:42:25 PM

Yeah, they make a lot of money off the fact that people submit down the chain in an effort to elicit information about higher-ups' activities.

Posted by: plusone | Aug 25, 2018 2:40:33 PM

The delayed rejection e-mails is another indicator of how broken the system is. If a journal appears open but in reality is full, Scholastica will only release the rejection the next morning to give the appearance of actual review where no review took place. Imagine the outrage if you submitted to 80 law review and immediately received 5 rejection emails saying "we're full (and been full for the last week)."

Posted by: NewProf | Aug 25, 2018 2:40:11 PM

Anon | Aug 25, 2018 2:01:17 PM -

That was exactly my point. Scholastica wants to make as much profit as possible. Many journals appear open but are not actually reviewing. Why would Scholastica provide any more transparency if their business model revolves around uncertainty - e.g. "journals are open and reviewing! submit now!"

Posted by: NewProf | Aug 25, 2018 2:34:55 PM

I wish this comment thread had a "like" button. +1 on the concept that the revenue share idea would result in instantaneous rejections and discourage journals from giving an unknown a chance. +1 on idea that we should get board read notifications. I suspect they will never do it because far more than admit it use expedites to get a little glimpse into the process. Last year, I expedited off a journal I probably wouldn't have accepted and immediately got info about three board reads. I don't think the expedite caused the board reads, but it caused me to learn of them, which made me feel a lot less anxious. +1 on the idea that it's absolutely wrong that they took money for my submission to a "closed" journal, like Wash U.

Posted by: plusone | Aug 25, 2018 2:12:50 PM

The journals need to dump Scholastica en masse. There is no reason this can’t happen. The price-gouging and deliberate secrecy is bad for our profession, bad for students, and bad for knowledge-creation. The whole process disgusts me more and more than it ever has before.

Posted by: prawf | Aug 25, 2018 2:11:15 PM

I suspect scholastica shut it down, not because they want to hide board reads and activity, but because of the exact opposite: they don't want us to know how little activity occurs on most of our submissions. It exposes the underbelly of journals who reject without any process or who simply never open your article even though you paid for a submission and the journal says they are open. Scholastic has an incentive for these journals to say they are open because it gets money...

Posted by: Anon | Aug 25, 2018 2:01:17 PM

anonauthor - you're right, Scholastica doesn't make most of its revenue off of leading law professors. But journals are more likely to change their behavior if their respective faculty members (again, tenured and well-known individuals) signal that this lack of transparency is unacceptable.

Posted by: NewProf | Aug 25, 2018 1:39:49 PM

@NewProf - Scholastica doesn't only make money off of leading law professors. There's only a handful of them and they probably only submit to the T20. The bulk of the submissions (and Scholastica's revenue) have to be coming from lower down the ladder folks who are shooting blind and quite frustrated.

Posted by: anonauthor | Aug 25, 2018 1:37:24 PM

LawAndEcon - what incentive does Scholastica have to adopt this revenue share model?

Also, this system will simply result in massive near-instantaneous rejections. I think it would discourage journals from seriously reviewing pieces by junior faculty. It will increase the letterhead bias, in my view.

Posted by: NewProf | Aug 25, 2018 1:36:32 PM

I admittedly have no idea. I'm brand new to this process (this was my first article and I'm not a professor). Perhaps post a letter to Scholastica or to the/a blog.

As one idea, I think a "considering" check mark next to the article on the journal side would help a great deal. Or let us know when a second reader has been assigned. Again, i expect some journals would get a reputation for being silent, but any information would help.

Posted by: anonauthor | Aug 25, 2018 1:34:03 PM

The solution is simple really: a revenue share model between Scholastica and the journals under which journals do not get any money for a given submission until they either accept or reject it and under which the revenue share received by journals decreases by some amount each day.

Posted by: LawAndEcon | Aug 25, 2018 1:32:30 PM

Realistically, having the leading law professors on board is the only possible leverage. Problem is, most of these professors have no real incentive to change the system that largely benefits them.

Posted by: NewProf | Aug 25, 2018 1:29:46 PM

What would it take, realistically, to change the model? We all complain about it. I agree it's terrible. So how could we collectively change it?

Posted by: angsty | Aug 25, 2018 1:25:10 PM

Exactly, anonauthor. Imagine how many opportunities were lost because of the gap in information between authors and journals, which is now also exacerbated by Scholastica's agency problem. Journals could be seriously considering a piece, but the author would never know because Scholastica only tells you if your piece has been accepted, rejected, or undecided (under review). I think Scholastica could definitely provide a feature that distinguishes between article received - article under (active) review - article under full board review - etc.

I'll be bold an say that there's nothing wrong in letting authors know that their articles have been put on a shortlist. This transparency is technologically feasible, it would be a relief to all of us angst-ers, and it wouldn't harm the interests of the platform/journals. If anything, it would increase trust and decrease arbitrariness.

Posted by: NewProf | Aug 25, 2018 1:20:01 PM

Not only that, but it would take a student editor two seconds to click "considering" or "board review." Allow the scholarship to place on its merits - not on your willingness to take a risk and forego an offer.

Posted by: anonauthor | Aug 25, 2018 1:11:53 PM

It's funny how this thread provides all the information that law reviews and Scholastica need, while we get nothing in return. If anything, they shut down whatever avenues of transparency we discover (like the refresh glitch). This asymmetry is just staggering. What's the harm in us knowing that journals are active in reviewing our work? Maybe Scholastica knows that many journals have zero activity on most submissions.

Posted by: NewProf | Aug 25, 2018 1:04:03 PM

Pretty ridiculous that Scholastica got rid of the refresh order. It should be a completely transparent process (we shouldn't even have to take a screen grab - that should just be the screen - and quite honestly, they should give more information). Really bad job on Scholastica's part.

Posted by: anonauthor | Aug 25, 2018 1:03:52 PM

Furball, I feel your question is much more of a statement. Nevertheless, I agree. If you only submit to journals with which you’d publish, this’ll never be a problem. But yeah, if you get an offer from a journa you end up rejecting, and receive no offers from the expedite, you might hurt yourself. And count me in the group that thinks you should only submit to journals that you’d publish with.

Posted by: AnonProf---- | Aug 25, 2018 10:15:56 AM

not a non: as I understand your question, you submitted to a lower ranked journal you have/had no intent of publishing with (hence the possibility the offer could expire)? Did you submit to this lower ranked journal just to use the offer for an expedite? Just trying to understand your question.

Posted by: Furball | Aug 25, 2018 10:03:55 AM

Is it me, or has Scholastica also nixed the phenomenon of the 8:00 a.m. - 8:08 a.m. morning dings? I used to get some measure of comfort once that hour had passed -- one more day afloat. Now that we've had a couple of days of no morning spreadsheet updates, during a period when rejections are certainly coming in, it seems that relief is unfounded.

Posted by: AnonE | Aug 25, 2018 8:21:57 AM

What is the impact of an expired expedite on later offers? If you decide to decline an offer, do other journals assume that your piece is no longer available and not bother reviewing? Or do they still review the piece as usual, and then (if interested) ask if it's available?

Would be curious to hear experiences, knowing that it may vary by journal and author. Common advice is "Expedite!" but I don't see much discussion of the potential consequences of doing so.

Posted by: not a non | Aug 25, 2018 7:11:27 AM

Guys, I'm really sad that I can't obsessively refresh scholastica anymore. I know it wasn't healthy, but why did they take it away from us!?

Posted by: Anon | Aug 25, 2018 12:10:36 AM

any intel on which journals are really done especially among the top schools? I know alot of people sometimes submit later in the process just to see if they get a hit before going on spring market so if there are any journals known anecdotally to be almost done (someone above mentioned CAL) it would be nice to crowd source that since it's annoying paying $6.50 a submission when they don't even review it.

Posted by: anon | Aug 24, 2018 11:34:13 PM

1. Scholastica offers a max 20 fee waivers per season, irrespective of need. This is obviously insufficient and, I am confident, creates a small but serious access issue in legal academia. I'd love to see folks raise more of a fuss about this, although I appreciate that it's difficult given Scholastica's muddy policy on fee waivers.

2. I was a reader for two different journals at my HYSCCN school (the flagship journal + a well-regarded secondary). One of these journals was in the process of transitioning to Scholastica while I was there. I believe the service provides some value for law review editors (which is why it's really taken over), but I don't think it provides much value for authors -- the impact of our switch on the likelihood that any particular article would be read (or read carefully) was marginal-to-none. That doesn't mean that spending money on Scholastica now that most journals have made the transition is a waste: I don't think there's much of a choice at this point for anyone looking to publish in the T50. But based on my first-hand experience with these platforms, I highly doubt that the mass-transition of journals to Scholastica has had a serious impact on the amount of attention given to each individual submission.

3. I submitted about a week ago and, other than a Wake Forest rejection, have heard nothing.

Posted by: anon1 | Aug 24, 2018 11:33:31 PM

anxiety, just to be clear, I was paying out of pocket too. Since I knew publishing was so important to my career, I was willing to pay more out of pocket to purchase the privilege of having my article read, I guess. I never spent a grand though, or close to that. And I get all of your points, just throwing a different perspective out there.

Also, in complete agreement, about releasing offers. I had a colleague who'd horde offers. I think she had anxiety that her preferred journal would pull her offer out of the blue. So she liked the safety blanket of having another offer in the wings. I'm a big believe that if you get a hit at like #42, you should withdraw from all journals ranked below that (or any other journal you wouldn't select over the offer) and release all offers.

Posted by: AnonProf---- | Aug 24, 2018 10:59:05 PM

Well, no more re-ordering thingy on scholastica. Maybe that's for the better.

Posted by: anon | Aug 24, 2018 10:58:36 PM

AnonProf, I do get that (kind of like the incentives that drive civil litigation outcomes--you spend what you think your case is worth). But I also just spent a number of years on the faculty of a non-U.S. law school that didn't pay for submissions. I made a low academic salary (relative to what U.S. profs make), not a practitioner's salary, and had to pay for the whole shebang out of my own personal income. Which is to say I charged it, as submitting to 150 journals on mostly scholastica comes close to $1000. While my current concerns, sitting pretty at an institution that pays for this, relate to wasted costs that get passed on to students, my fairly recent concerns related to the total barrier to entry Scholastica poses to scholars (international, non-profit affiliated, etc.) who lack either institutional sponsor or adequate personal income to absorb the blow of a submission. It's bad enough that the other disciplines (and the legal academy of pretty much every other country) is horrified that students edit our journals. That's it's own conversation. But the fact that someone who wants to submit to a U.S. law review who is not currently affiliated with an institution essentially has to lay out $1000 to even be considered is pretty counter to all of the values of academia as they are understood anywhere else. Because I hate when people make this angsting thread about unrelated topics I will throw in my own data: submitted two weeks ago, have a couple of offers between T50 and T80, and radio silence for the last three days. I also know of two people who have gotten T20ish offers over the past 24 hours. Hopefully also on the subject of angsting: I do wish people would release offers they're certain they're not going to use. I realize there are certain situations where holding two is helpful, but I'm learning that people I know don't withdraw from anywhere after better offers, whereas I pretty much immediately withdraw from all journals below whatever I'm holding. It doesn't take that long and it's a service to the community.

Posted by: anxiety | Aug 24, 2018 10:49:58 PM

I actually really appreciate Scholastica... I was in a small camp that benefitted from it. Before my current appointment, I was at a lesser regarded business school, and prior to that, in practice. When expresso was the primary vehicle, I felt like professors could submit so many articles at once--especially due to the cheap price--that it overwhelmed the law reviews. I mean, there was very little preventing law profs from blanketing even the lowliest of journals. It made it particularly hard for one who has neither a publishing history nor letter head to get reviewed by law journals. With Scholastica, however, I felt like I was actually getting reviewed (and dinged, but reviewed nonetheless). Even though I was paying out of pocket, I felt like I at least had a chance.

So while I agree with the general feeling that the high prices are hurting students and solo practitioners, I found a benefit.

Posted by: AnonProf---- | Aug 24, 2018 10:35:34 PM

I will never understand why the move to Scholastica has been so widely accepted. I am given to understand that Scholastica is in some way "easier" for the journals. But the "journals" are made up of students whose tuition is affected by absurd wastes of money like paying $6.50 per journal for submissions. This whole process in nonsense on stilts.

Posted by: anxiety | Aug 24, 2018 10:29:00 PM


Yes, that’s quite right. I am sure the exorbitant cost excludes less-subsidized and less-affluent voices. And I am not at all convinced that fee waivers for persons living below the poverty lime help the situation much, if at all.

Posted by: CYNIC | Aug 24, 2018 10:17:58 PM

^ Gouges the students, you mean. They're the ones ultimately paying for law schools to subsidize profs submitting to scholastica.

And the independent research/practicing community.

Posted by: YesterdayIKilledAMammoth | Aug 24, 2018 9:25:22 PM

You would think that for $6.50 per submission Scholastica would let us have our refresh fun. Maybe when Scholstica gouges the academic community yet again—perhaps to $10 per manuscript? $12?—they’ll put the refresh “problem” back.

Posted by: CYNIC | Aug 24, 2018 8:23:20 PM

Well, I guess it wasn't really doing much for us anyway to get that intel. Sigh. Wish there were a way to create transparency in this process. Am I better off for knowing that a couple of schools had activities a couple of times and still haven't rejected me? Or would I be happier if they were just in the big pile of schools that have not rejected me (and have rejected others) and have done nothing favorable? I was a little bit buffeted by the momentary hope, but it has (as yet) not given rise to anything positive.

Posted by: AnonE | Aug 24, 2018 7:54:07 PM

Big Law Review is always watching.

Posted by: Mr. Eugenides | Aug 24, 2018 7:52:58 PM

The jig is up...from the source code:

"The order matches the default client order Added to prevent a problem where users could see which journals acted on their manuscript -->"

Posted by: a non | Aug 24, 2018 7:48:21 PM

FWIW, using the combined score index, Dartmouth LJ comes in at 873 on the W & L list.

Posted by: anonanon | Aug 24, 2018 4:30:09 PM

Dartmouth is the beautiful unicorn of law journals; definitely accept on the spot.

Posted by: Anon | Aug 24, 2018 2:58:57 PM

Where would folks rank the Dartmouth Law Journal?

Posted by: AnonP | Aug 24, 2018 2:20:30 PM

Post a comment