« Entry Level Hiring over at LTB; lateral hiring here | Main | Size and Governance »

Saturday, February 10, 2007

Spring Submission Guide for Law Reviews and Thoughts for Rising Prawfs

Two quick public service announcements from your friends at Prawfs.   First, thanks to Tony Sebok, we have an updated submission guide to publishing in a couple dozen of the top law reviews for Spring 2007.   You can download it here.  The document includes information regarding the law reviews' addresses, preferred lengths for submissions, the turnover of the new boards, and whether they accept electronic submission via email or ExpressO.  Please feel free to add other information in the comments.

The second announcement is for rising prawfs about to enter the legal academy.   Some law schools are known to count towards tenure only those articles that have been sent out once you've been on the tenure-track.  Thus, if you're a VAP or a fellow, with a job already accepted at this point, you may want to consider sitting on the paper you have ready for another six months just so there's a greater likelihood that this piece will count toward your tenure portfolio.  Of course, when it comes time for tenure, you want to make sure there's no question you've exceeded your tenure requirements, and you don't want to have this one article be the tipping point, but all things considered, if you were lucky enough to land a job without already having your job talk accepted for publication, then you may want to consider waiting another six months.

One countervailing consideration, however, is letterhead bias.  To the extent letterhead bias  exists in the selection of articles, then you may prefer to send out an article on Yale letterhead b/c you're a Ribicoff, or from Chicago b/c you're a Bigelow, etc.  But I tend to discount the letterhead point a bit, in part because of Expresso, and in part because law review editors can generally suss out who's actually a prawf at YLS as opposed to who's a fellow there.  But maybe I'm wrong on one or both of these issues.  Others with more experience in the academy may want to weigh in on these various issues. 

Update: Tony Sebok has sent me an amended guide which you can download here.

Posted by Administrators on February 10, 2007 at 05:09 PM in Life of Law Schools | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c6a7953ef00d83518135a69e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Spring Submission Guide for Law Reviews and Thoughts for Rising Prawfs:

Comments

Good question. I have this feeling, however, that no one who heard a job talk will a) have kept the paper and b) be lurking around waiting to compare the existing paper with the new published article. Unless someone at the school at which you accepted an offer made it a point to hunt you down and deliver suggestion upon suggestion--and you'll likely know if you have such a helpful soul in your midst.

Posted by: Anon | Feb 14, 2007 12:49:41 PM

Quick question about the advice for rising prawfs considering whether to submit their job talk papers to law journals this spring --- if you sent an essentially completed draft to schools early last fall when you were on the market, will there be any raised eyebrows if you submit it as part of your tenure portfolio if the changes from that earlier version are less than substantial? Has anyone run across this issue??

Posted by: anon | Feb 13, 2007 8:29:29 PM

Just a note of caution: Tony's spreadsheet is outdated as to Southern Cal. Josh Gordon was the EAE two years ago. This past edition's EAE, Amanda Kaplan (who selected, and published, my last piece), will be stepping down with the election of the new board. I am not sure who her replacement will be, but I can find out from Jeff Makin, the current EIC of volume 80. Thus, folks might want to check the names of the EAEs or SAEs on Tony's list to make sure that they are current. I have a spread sheet from the summer submission that I will send to Dan to post for folks to double check the names (which at this point are outdated).

Posted by: Danielle Citron | Feb 11, 2007 10:33:42 AM

Post a comment