« Law School Hiring, 2011-2012, Thread One | Main | Retributive Justice and the Demands of Democratic Citizenship »

Monday, September 19, 2011

Open Thread for Law Review "Angsting"

Updated and bounced to the front:

Redyip has finally been sighted for the season. The question is: has he departed for good until the spring? Are the law reviews still open for business and making offers?

Since we had such a successful thread this past spring about the submission season, I figured we should start a new thread for a joy/gripe-fest, a place where authors and editors can share stories and offer information about the upcoming submission season. Have at it!

Posted by Administrators on September 19, 2011 at 02:11 PM in Blogging, Law Review Review, Life of Law Schools | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Open Thread for Law Review "Angsting":


I'm choosing between offers. W&L journal rankings favors one by about 24 rank slots. On the other hand, law school rank under US News favors the other by about 12 rank slots. Which one would you take?

Posted by: on the fence | Oct 4, 2011 10:48:34 AM

sorry profhopeful. truth is, that's not unusual in this cycle (or last). i haven't heard from roughly 80 journals (I've since withdrawn from half of those, but the remaining 40 or so have received three expedite requests, one of which almost expired without any word from journals other than the offeror). i'm not sure what this means. is silence the new rejection? if so, that's a pretty dreadful way to treat potential future authors. makes me feel less guilty about using them to expedite up though.

Posted by: (not) enjoy(ing) the silence | Sep 28, 2011 8:14:38 PM

Has anybody on here heard from The Review of Litigation law review (from Texas)?? I have heard nothing, and it has been over 4 weeks. Thanks!

Posted by: profhopeful | Sep 28, 2011 6:07:14 PM

I think the moral of the story is that there is widespread disagreement among academics about placement in specialty journals, especially in the context of T14 specialty journals v. main law reviews in the 50-100 range. Maybe we can all agree to disagree.

Posted by: juniorprof | Sep 28, 2011 1:39:37 PM

I think a lot of this advice is awful - especially regarding whether it is better to publish in a t14 specialty or mid t100 flag. I've never heard anyone ever say something along the lines of it being better to publish in a t14 specialty journal (so i assume 10-14ish) than, say, cardozo. This is awful advice. It might be arguably better to publish in a t2 specialty than cardozo, but that's the closest case. Does anyone actually think it would be better to publish in, for example, the Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy than Cardozo Law Review? The Columbia Human Rights Law Review over Connecticut Law Review? Berkeley Journal of International Law over American University Law Review? I'd personally take the flagships in each case - and I bet the general (legal) academy would too. But that's just me.

Posted by: anonvap | Sep 28, 2011 9:09:25 AM

Duke is closed. This was mentioned earlier in the thread, but they just sent an email confirming.

Posted by: news | Sep 28, 2011 8:15:04 AM

To AntiLRev
You are better off with the specialty of a T14 than law review of the lower ranked journal.

Posted by: T14Author | Sep 27, 2011 7:27:40 AM

There is more than merely abstract prestige that favors publishing in "flagship" law reviews.

The reason why it is more impressive to be published in one journal over another is that some receive more submissions; therefore, the probability of acceptance at some law reviews is significantly lower than at others. For those without fancy letterheads or other connections to the flagship journal, the likelihood of acceptance is even lower.

Posted by: AnonProf | Sep 26, 2011 11:27:10 PM


Your analogy between letterhead bias and masthead bias is interesting, but I think there are important differences that you are eliding.

First, authors are pretty honest upfront that they are looking to publish in highly ranked law reviews. Law review editors are usually not very upfront about letterhead bias. Most law reviews will go on and on about how they give "individual consideration" to every article. If the journal editors themselves deny they engage in letterhead bias, it is hardly unfair to hold them to it.

Second, and relatedly, the *only* thing that a law review has to offer an author is its prestige, which is basically the same as its masthead. In this day and age where one can distribute an article via SSRN, the only thing that "publishing" an article in a law review contributes over-and-above SSRN is to put a masthead on it. In that sense, masthead bias is the very reason for the law review's existence in the first place. It is extremely difficult for even a low ranked law review to wish that masthead bias would evaporate, since without masthead bias no law reviews would not exist.

In contrast, neither authors, nor readers, nor law reviews, think that the only thing that an author has to offer is his letterhead. The letterhead is important (as you point out, I engaged in it myself), but it is not the very reason for an author's existence. Low ranked authors have every reason to criticize letterhead bias, since it works against them, and they would be very pleased if it disappeared.

Posted by: anonprof | Sep 26, 2011 10:08:45 PM

I'm not so sure whether it is important that the viewpoint is borne out (as you say, it probably isn't), but it is a prevailing viewpoint among a considerable sector of the legal academy. Before tenure, you are, to some extent, at the mercy of these viewpoints. In the end, however, this is a lot of angst over marginal differences. I've never heard of anyone losing out on tenure based upon their choice of where to publish; indeed, it is incredibly rare that someone who is a productive publisher will be passed up at all (even someone who is barely productive).

Keep in mind that a thread about angsting over law review publication is likely to overemphasize the degree to which the law prof culture cares about publication prestige.

Posted by: flagship | Sep 26, 2011 9:51:33 PM

Flagship: I understand that "level of practitioner care" is not of much concern to most here, who are pursuing, or who already have, academic careers. But if I am going to stay in practice and write law review articles just because I enjoy doing so, then I should place them in journals that will be recognized/respected by attorneys considering me for hire/promotion. (Obviously, practitioners are not required to write academic articles, but I'm an appellate litigator in a field that actually makes use of doctrinal scholarship, so it certainly doesn't hurt to have publications!)

As for your distinction between general vs. niche interests, I'm not sure whether that's really borne out. One of the two articles in the current issue of the Harvard Law Review is on "strategic forfeiture in platform markets for informational goods." It is in no way clear to me that this is of greater general interest than, say, one of the four articles in the current issue of the Harvard Journal of Law and Technology, which is on the chilling effects of the DMCA on the First Amendment, with examples from political campaigns - of broad potential interest to any of us interested in the Internet, free speech, the DMCA, copyright law, etc.

Posted by: AntiLRev | Sep 26, 2011 4:27:13 PM

Level of practitioner care is a strange metric. I think flagships are favored by law faculties because it is a proxy for whether a piece is of general interest rather than of a niche, parochial and, perhaps, insular interest. There remains a prevailing notion that one is supposed to write for others rather than for their own circle of specialists. This same thinking informs the view that tenure seeking professors ought not publish only in peer review journals. I find this line of thinking to be strange, particularly in the latter case, but it is a popular line of thinking all the same (especially by more aged members of the faculty, who get the same voting power as the rest).

Posted by: flagship | Sep 26, 2011 3:09:06 PM

As a 2nd year prof who moved over from practice, I would have to agree with AntiRev. Practitioners' perceived prestige of a journal is much more heavily based on the school rather than whether the journal is a flagship journal. If you were an employer making a decision between a successful T14 student who didn't make law review and a Tier 2 student who made law review (all else being equal), would you say that hiring the Tier 2 student is a no-brainer? Few would, so I wonder why the same reasoning doesn't apply to selecting publishers for law review articles.

Posted by: Anon | Sep 26, 2011 1:44:13 PM

Iowa is now full.

Posted by: news | Sep 26, 2011 1:32:18 PM

@ 1stTierProf: but isn't letterhead bias just the inverse of masthead bias? From what I gather, law journal editors face pressure to select articles from people with putatively great pedigrees because readers will use their authors' resumes as a rough metric of the journal's reputation and prestige? In this very thread, one commenter admonished us recently, "But the reality of the current market is that online journals are very far down the food chain. Take a look at the Yale Journal of Law and Technology (online-only) and the authors published there, and compare that to the authors published in the Harvard Journal of Law and Technology (conventional print)."

We weren't told that the quality of articles in Yale JOLT is significantly lower than Harvard JOLT. We were told, effectively, to infer that fact based on the pedigrees of the Yale JOLT authors.

Anyway, I am a practitioner who was considering academia when I wrote the article that I recently submitted, and I have the usual credentials for a prospective academic re: law school, grades, clerkships, etc. I'm pretty happy with my T14 secondary placement, and given that I'm now very ambivalent about pursuing an academic career, I'm inclined to prefer the T14 secondary to a low-T2 primary law review offer. The T14 name is much more recognizable to practitioners, none of whom seem aware of academia's apparent preference for "flagship" T2 law reviews over T14 secondaries. More importantly, after much reflection, I've decided that I find it undesirable to pursue a career track in which decisions about my success/tenure (at least for the first few, crucial years) are made based on how well my scholarship is liked by second-year law students .... who, in turn, may be engaging in "letterhead bias" rather than even attempting to evaluate the merits of my articles. Even attempting to explain this ludicrous system has caused my MD and PhD-holding friends to burst out laughing. This experience of placing my article, while interesting, has helped me to reject an legal "academic" career.

Posted by: AntiLRev | Sep 26, 2011 1:13:42 PM


I see your point, but I disagree. Assuming that masthead bias is no different from letterhead bias, I am not engaging in either one. I know that where one publishes has a great impact on those who make decisions about whom to cite, who gets tenure, and who gets lateral offers. If everyone took the time, as I do when making such decisions, to read a piece sufficiently to get a sense of its quality, I wouldn't need to be so concerned about where my work places, because I know it is good no matter what. But others do use the masthead as a proxy, so I have to also.

Law journal editors do not suffer from the same pressure and therefore do not have the same excuse. To the contrary, they are the very ones who decide, for those too lazy to make the decision themselves, which pieces are "good."

Posted by: 1stTierProfAt4thTierSchool | Sep 26, 2011 11:13:51 AM

Profhopeful, in my humble opinion, the following topics place best (in descending order): (1) Con Law; (2) Topics clearly related to 1L Classes; (3) short, narrow "what if?" pieces. My piece is empirical, and I've received 6 offers on it, although none of them are spectacular (Mid T100 flagship and a T14 specialty ... I'm planning to take the former over the latter, contrary to MyOpinion's advice).

Posted by: patterns | Sep 25, 2011 4:33:17 PM

Just to comment on some posts above, it is better to publish in the int'l journal of a prestigious T14 school (Berkeley, Texas, Virginia, Georgetown) than a main law review from a mid ranking T100 school like Cardozo. Look at the authors of these articles being published in T14 int'l journals -many are professors in great T20 schools.
On online companions - I also believe that over time, the online companions of these specialty journals will also be cited by courts and their value will increase.

Posted by: MyOpinion | Sep 25, 2011 10:02:50 AM

question -- for authors receiving offers, what are you article topics? i wrote an article on class actions (which a few class action defense attorneys have read and liked) and have received no offers yet. i think this is a hot topic and surprised by the lack of offers.

Posted by: profhopeful | Sep 24, 2011 3:58:40 PM

Looks like Emory and Wash U law reviews are now full (according to the temporarily full list on ExpressO ... neither bothered to mention this via email).

Posted by: bad news | Sep 24, 2011 12:14:30 AM

4thTierProf - I understand (and often share) your frustration but I can't help but read your post and think...Pot, meet Kettle. You're upset about letterhead bias but you only submitted to the top 50 schools, thus engaging in masthead bias. Aren't letterhead bias and masthead bias two sides of the same "using school name as proxy for quality" coin?

Posted by: another4thtierprof | Sep 23, 2011 12:18:25 PM

Yes, I received two offers from top 100 schools and one from a fourth tier.

Posted by: Hello | Sep 23, 2011 9:11:41 AM

hello -- did you receive offers from general law reviews in the top 100? i am trying to get a feel for which schools are still accepting new submissions. thanks!

Posted by: newprof | Sep 23, 2011 8:36:37 AM

This season is far from over. I've received more offers in the last week than in the many weeks leading up to this one. So I would recommend sending to lower ranked journals (unless that is costly for you). There are two good reasons to do this: (1) you can simply place the article (albeit at a low ranking journal); (2) you can get a low ranking journal offer and then expedite, which gets you pulled out of the pile at the higher ranked journals. As for (2), I have a theory that higher ranked journals will generally not even look at the piece on its merits until they receive an expedite. This is even more true in the Spring when the pile of submissions is overwhelming. As a result, if you don't get a quick offer, you risk languishing in the pile, never getting looked at. Or worse, the top ranked journal will eventually ding you based on letterhead. This is why I will never again limit my submissions to the top 50; it's too hard to get that initial expedite.

Someone said on this thread that this season might be slow because there are many resubmitting from the Spring (when they had overwhelming numbers of submissions) as well as the fact that many editors have been forced to do 3L recruiting due to the dismal job market.

Posted by: Hello | Sep 22, 2011 7:42:08 PM

newprof -- when I resubmit, I redo the title, abstract and introduction, and revise at least some portions of the body. An additional five months to work with the article always results in at least some improvements.

anonVAP -- I suppose that is right, though given this is already late in the season, I doubt it makes sense to submit to lower ranked journals now (as opposed to resubmitting next season and submitting to the top 100 this time). It might be different if I needed the article accepted right now no matter what (say, e.g., if I were a VAP attending the meat market in November), but I have the luxury of waiting.

Posted by: anonprof | Sep 22, 2011 5:53:18 PM

The alternative to waiting and re-submitting would be to submit to lower ranked journals now...there are so many out there that I am sure your article could find a home somewhere this cycle.

Posted by: anonVAP | Sep 22, 2011 4:41:24 PM

anonprof -- i thought law reviews monitor if an author resubmits an article in the next cycle. is the key to change the title of the article upon resubmitting?

Posted by: newprof | Sep 22, 2011 4:24:47 PM

My plan is to resubmit next cycle. What else can one do? Throw away the article?

Posted by: anonprof | Sep 22, 2011 3:59:22 PM

anonprof -- Assuming your luck doesn't change, do you plan to wait and re-submit next cycle? Is that the conventional wisdom? Thanks for sharing your experience -- it is somewhat reassuring to know that letterhead bias is not the only explanation.

Posted by: anonVAP | Sep 22, 2011 3:40:59 PM

Thanks, MDO. Your sense is my sense as well. I wanted to see if there are other opinions out there. Much appreciated.

Posted by: Jose | Sep 22, 2011 2:22:44 PM

4thTierProf & anonVAP -- Letterhead bias is pervasive. But it is not the only explanation. I have a top 50 letterhead. I submitted an article to the top 50 law reviews in August. No offers. My sense is that this season has been quite bad in general.

Posted by: anonprof | Sep 22, 2011 2:21:38 PM

Jose, I think the answer depends on what you're looking for. I think that you actually get more exposure doing the online supplement for the top, top journals--usually, this means that you are engaging with other authors on high profile recent work, so it will get you in the conversation. On the other hand, the online publication probably won't get you many points towards tenure as would publishing it as an essay in a lower ranked print journal. This strikes me as a silly thing, but it's true so far as I can tell.

Posted by: My Different Opinion | Sep 22, 2011 1:24:46 PM


I hear you! I am a VAP at a 2nd tier school, obviously do not have an extensive publishing record because I am still fairly new to academia. I have had several profs (who have published extensively in prestigious journals) tell me that this article should be published in a top journal, yet still no offers after submitting to 70+ journals on 8/8. Very frustrating...

Posted by: anonVAP | Sep 22, 2011 12:52:27 PM

What do you all think of the relative prestige of an offer to publish in the online companion of a prestigious print journal? I circulated an essay for consideration by print journals and received such an offer. Should I be trying to get it in a print journal? Or does the "prestige factor" rub off and apply to the online companions of top general print law reviews?

Posted by: Jose | Sep 22, 2011 12:49:04 PM

Not to be nitpicky, but I don't know anyone that would take VILJ over Cardozo. For one, most people know that Cardozo and several others (e.g., Fordham) are more prestigious than their overall school ranking (W&L ranks Cardozo at 34 overall). Plus, many schools value flagships over specialty for tenure purposes (unless there is a large gap in school ranking). Of course, if you are trying to make a name in your field, and you have already done a suitable amount of flagship publishing, you might want to go for a specialty. I would, however, choose the VILJ over, say, Oregon. I admit, however, that different law school's have different cultures, and this position might be explainable on those terms.

Posted by: Hello | Sep 22, 2011 8:12:58 AM

Dear My Different Opinion,
No you do not understand at all! Obviously CA Law Review (as the main law review of Berkeley) would be my pick. I am referring to for example taking the Virginia Int'l LJ over the Cardozo Law Review.
To the 4thTierProf - you have a valid point but that's the way it is in law prestige ranks. The articles editors look seriously at the author's affiliation. Usually but not 100% of the time. Its a bit of a catch 22 - you need scholarship in highly ranked journals to get teaching positions at top schools but to get accepted you usually need to be teaching at a top school. You can be a great lawyer at a solo office but if you are at Skadden...you understand what I mean.
Back to the point, if you believe in your article, re-submit again to top journals. There will be editors who care more about the scholarship and less about where you teach.

Posted by: MyOpinion | Sep 22, 2011 2:47:56 AM

I submitted my article on 8/11 to the top 50 and have gotten ZERO offers, on an article that one reviewer says belongs in a top-ten journal. I am so sick of this letterhead bias bullshit.

Posted by: 1stTierProfAt4thTierSchool | Sep 22, 2011 12:30:35 AM

Check the other thread on specialty journals before drawing any conclusions.

FWIW, I disagree with MyOpinion unless the difference is more than 60-70 places in the rankings. Even MyOpinion must have some kind of ranking gap in mind before following his or her maxim; for example, I assume that MyOpinion wouldn't take HILJ over, say, California Law Review. That would be crazy.

Posted by: My Different Opinion | Sep 21, 2011 4:25:37 PM

When I say online I mean the online companions to say the Berkeley or Virginia or Georgetown Int'l Law Journals.

Posted by: MyOpinion | Sep 21, 2011 4:05:05 PM

I think being published ion a specialty journal like an int'l law journal of a higher ranked school is better than a law review of a lower ranked school.
Ditto for online journals.

Posted by: MyOpinion | Sep 21, 2011 3:57:01 PM


It is not that the distinction only matters in the field of law and technology, it is that the online-only journals happen to be heavily concentrated in the field of law and technology (makes sense, I think). Off the top of my head, I cannot think of a single online-only secondary journal (in the sense of a real journal, not a supplement), in any field, that is comparable to a top 50 flagship law review. I can think of multiple print secondary journals (e.g. Harvard CRCL, Harvard JLPP, J Corp L) that fit that criterion.

Posted by: anonprof | Sep 21, 2011 3:09:34 PM

New Prof,
It's been an incredibly slow week for me. After receiving three offers and four rejections last week, I haven't heard a peep (good or bad) from anyone since about Thursday. Out of about 140 submissions, I've only heard from about 12 journals over the last month (plus about 8 that I've added to my ding list after consulting the ExpressO temp full list).

Posted by: Anon | Sep 21, 2011 12:52:43 PM

has anybody heard from law reviews this week? i submitted my article to about 40-50 general journals at schools ranked in the top 100, but i have heard only from baylor, ohio state, and florida state (all rejections). i also submitted my article to about 10 speciality journals, and have heard nothing.

Posted by: newprof | Sep 21, 2011 9:59:49 AM

anonprof - Perhaps what others are trying to get at it here is that perhaps in the field of Law & Technology, in which you are obviously an expert, this distinction matters in terms of prestige. For other secondary journal areas that have been around forever, such as say law and policy, a journal deciding not to send out a print version is not the same type of prestige problem for potential authors. Even professors in the "field," which of course is very broad, don't have a good idea of which journals do not send out print versions.

Posted by: juniorprof | Sep 21, 2011 9:45:54 AM

anon@8:55 -- I can only presume you are not a law professor. It is true that "most" people do not know which journals are online-only just from the citation, but almost all law professors do, because the prestige difference is so large. You can criticize that on multiple grounds, e.g. that law professors are overly prestige obsessed, that it makes no sense because online-only saves paper, etc. -- but none of those will change the reality of the enormous difference in prestige. And if you have not heard of the difference in prestige, then I can only recommend that you do my Yale JOLT/Harvard JOLT comparison. Heck, don't even bother with comparing Yale JOLT to Harvard JOLT. Compare Yale JOLT (online) to the Minnesota Journal of Law, Science & Technology (print).

Posted by: anonprof | Sep 20, 2011 11:53:27 PM

With most people looking up articles online and not going to the library to find them, most people have no idea which journals are "online only" when looking at a citation. It is a trend among newer journals, and makes sense given how people look up articles these days. I've never heard anything about such journals being less prestigious just because there is no print version (although many of them will send reprints to the author).

Posted by: anon | Sep 20, 2011 8:55:29 PM


You and I are talking about different things. The journals you are talking about (Harvard Law Review Forum, Pennumbra, NW Colloquy, and YLJ Online) are supplements attached to highly prestigious print journals and are essentially catering to a different market. The pieces are shorter and serve a different function from the 25,000 article. And yes, they regularly get highly prestigious authors to contribute.

What I am talking about are online journals like Yale JOLT which are independent journals that publish full fledged 25,000 word articles. It is basically a competitor to the Yale Law Journal, except that (1) the Yale JOLT is online only, and (2) it correspondingly attracts a lower quality of author and article.

Posted by: anonprof | Sep 20, 2011 5:06:41 PM

I'm not sure I can agree with anonprof; the comment borders on being hyperbolic. I think that the flagship online journals--Harvard Law Review Forum, Pennumbra, NW Colloquy, and YLJ Online and others in the T14--actually attract very good authors. This is often because they function largely to publish shorter pieces that respond to pieces by marquis authors. To take HLR Forum as an example, the last four authors teach at Duke, Columbia, BU, and Columbia again.

Posted by: Hello | Sep 20, 2011 4:56:12 PM

Wow, AnonProf, I just took at look at Yale JOLT authors, and you're right.

Posted by: Secondary journals | Sep 20, 2011 4:53:09 PM

@9:30:48 -- I meant journals like the Yale Journal of Law & Technology that accept full length articles. Contra anon@1:37:02 they do NOT enjoy good reputations. By this I do not mean their editing quality is bad, but that they are regarded as super low prestige placements and therefore cannot attract the same quality of article.

I should hasten to add that there are many good arguments in the abstract for favoring online over conventional print. But the reality of the current market is that online journals are very far down the food chain. Take a look at the Yale Journal of Law and Technology (online-only) and the authors published there, and compare that to the authors published in the Harvard Journal of Law and Technology (conventional print).

Posted by: anonprof | Sep 20, 2011 4:40:57 PM

Some journals are online-only, but accept full-length articles and enjoy good reputations. This is particularly the case with journals specializing in law and technology, but I expect it is not exclusive to that field. An example is the Yale Journal of Law & Technology or the Columbia Science and Tech. Law Review.
It seems to me that in this day and age, the distinction between print and online journals should be meaningless, but I suppose some still cling to it.

Posted by: anon | Sep 20, 2011 1:37:02 PM

anonprof - what do you mean by online journals? I assume you are referring to the online supplements to the main journals that seek shorter peices or responses to articles the law review has published, such as the Yale Law Journal Online, Northwestern University Law
Review Colloquy, Sidebar (Columbia)?

Posted by: anon | Sep 20, 2011 9:30:48 AM

Submitted to top 50 law reviews on 8/26. Rejections from Yale, Harvard, Chicago, Minnesota, Ohio State. Panicked and submitted to 50-90 on 9/14. Offer from mid-80s journal on 9/16. Sent expedite requests to all higher ranked journals and got offer from top 10 law review this weekend, which I happily accepted. Good luck to all.

Posted by: Sue Terrain | Sep 19, 2011 4:17:57 PM

Very quiet submission season. Submitted to 80 law reviews on 8/15 and only heard from about 10 (three acceptances, seven rejections), despite a couple of expedite requests. Also, Iowa just informed me that it is full.

Posted by: SA | Sep 19, 2011 3:34:12 PM


FWIW, I have an offer from a T14 specialty and from a flagship journal for school ranked 70, and I'm planning to take the latter if nothing else comes. I've been told that's a no-brainer.

Posted by: Anon | Sep 19, 2011 3:13:49 PM

Thanks, you guys. Where is the other thread? (Yes (to anonprof), the secondary journal offer is from a T14 print, non-online journal.)

Posted by: Secondary journals | Sep 19, 2011 2:13:49 PM

Secondary journals, note that there is another thread that deals with this question. Unfortunately, you won't see much of a consensus there!

Posted by: Hello | Sep 19, 2011 12:07:29 AM

Re: Secondary journals

This is one of the perennial questions that come up. The short answer is that it depends on the journal. I use a rule of thumb of "US News + 30" for fields in which I am not familiar, and by that rule a T14 secondary journal would be better than a T2 placement. I am assuming the secondary journal is a print, non-online journal (online journals are much less prestigious). The rule of thumb is just that, a highly inaccurate proxy and one that is easily displaced if you know the field. The Delaware Journal of Corporate Law, for example, is highly regarded in the corporate law scholarship, even though it comes out of Widener.

Posted by: anonprof | Sep 18, 2011 10:54:14 PM

Aaron and Hello, thanks.

Posted by: Prawf Hopeful | Sep 18, 2011 9:03:45 PM

I've found that most journals are willing to be reasonable when it comes to assignments of copyrights if you explain to them that there is no need and no real benefit for the journal in extracting anything more than a non-exclusive license with a right of first publication. They don't need anything more to publish your article in print and online; they don't need anything more for Westlaw or Lexis purposes.

So ask them to articulate a reason for demanding an assignment aside from "it's our policy." Chances are, they can't. It also helps to provide license language to save them the trouble of editing their form agreement.

Posted by: Aaron Perzanowski | Sep 18, 2011 7:12:56 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.