An Open Letter to ExpressO: Improving Law Review Submissions through Authors' Electronic Commitment to Accept the First Offer

Paul Caron collected some recent blog posts, including mine, discussing law review submission reform.  His Cincinnati colleague Lin Bai offered an interesting solution to the circus of mass submission and expedites: As compromise between the circus and the single-submission system common in other disciplines, authors can submit to as many journals as they like, but should be expected to accept the first offer.  That would make authors more selective about submissions, because if you really want your piece to appear in one of 20 or 30 journals, you can only submit to those journals.  It would also motivate journals to read such pieces, because they would know that they actually had a chance to publish all pieces submitted under this system.   Al Brophy commented on Lin's post that journals are unlikely to agree to such a policy.  But I wonder if it could be done through the action of authors, not journals, via ExpressO.

I assume it would be technically simple to add to the ExpressO submission system an option committing the author to accept the first offer.  This information would be sent with the article and cover letter to the journals.   Journals, in turn, could accept such a piece on line, and all the other journals informed that it was no longer available.  Perhaps the journals would also be told the number of other journals to which a particular paper had been submitted; if five, they would pay more attention than if fifty.

One of ExpressO's advantages is the many journals using its service, so ExpressO would not want to do anything that would drive off law reviews.  But it is hard to see why journals would  object to being told that the authors of particular pieces will accept the first offer.  Journals would not have to prioritize review of such pieces.  They might appreciate not having to waste time reviewing articles they have no chance of getting--as they do now under the current system when a higher ranked journal has made an offer on a piece, and the author has not had the courtesy to withdraw it from venues no longer in play. 

ExpressO might also be disinclined to do it for financial reasons.  It probably loves mass submission to scores of journals the author is using as expedite fodder, because it charges per journal submission.   But if communicating this information were advantageous to the authors, who of course pay the fees, ExpressO might be willing to offer this additional service for an additional flat fee or for a higher per-journal charge.

How would this play out for authors?  Of course, ExpressO is not blind, and therefore while this system is certain to save some work, it would continue to advantage "name" authors.   But elite authors can, and do, play this game with journals now.   If an article comes in on the letterhead of a top school, I'll bet it gets read, and if the letter contains a commitment to accept the first offer, I'll bet it gets taken into account.  If a cover letter from an author from a  low-ranked school says they will take the first offer, I'll bet most journals will  not read the cover letter to learn about the offer.   In addition, the really elite journals are unlikely to put a submission from the legal-research-and-writing person from Wyoming (see fn. 4) at the top of the pile, even at the risk of losing it.  So this system does not eliminate the advantages of elite law profs, or the difficulty of placing articles in elite journals.  But it might increase the chance of getting read at some great journals just outside the very top ones.

The Duke Law Journal did this a few years back.   Authors could submit to Duke and four other journals, and Duke committed to getting back to you quickly, on condition that you accept the first offer.  I don't know why they stopped.  (Please comment if you know).   Perhaps there was some kind of cheating, they accepted papers weaker than those selected through the regular process, or too few authors did it to make it worthwhile.    None of those things suggests that a broad-based, transparent process run through ExpressO is doomed to failure.