« Two cheers for corruption: Avoiding Sino-American Conflict with Conflicts of Interest | Main | Procedural Due Process in the Ninth Circuit's Immigration Order Decision »

Thursday, February 09, 2017

Submission Angsting Spring 2017

We are going old school with the angsting thread -- back to its beginnings, when Redyip, the great bird of the gods of Zarcon, first alighted into the sky to signal the beginning of the law review submission season.  I'm not sure if Redyip has provided the signal to Orin yet; we await further enlightenment. But ye may gather here, on this angsting thread, to provide such news: have journals awakened from their winter slumber to renew their manifold judgments?  Hark, traveler! -- do I see the winged colossus?  

Click here to go to the most recent comments.

Posted by Matt Bodie on February 9, 2017 at 12:15 PM in Law Review Review | Permalink


empiricalanon, I got rejections from UVA and Chicago, so maybe that means there's still hope for you there. Or maybe it means nothing. Who knows?

Posted by: NOLA | Apr 4, 2017 11:10:44 PM

If you email S Cal they will send a rejection if you need that. I had an expedite and sent an email and they rejected it I doubt I would have heard if I had not emailed.

Posted by: anon | Apr 4, 2017 9:57:49 PM

Empirical Anon: this may give you hope or further confuse you (I know it confused me) but last fall I submitted an article well outside the normal submission window (oct. 7). Most top 20 journals had already closed, but I got a top 20 offer about two weeks later. This season I submitted around the normal time (feb. 27) and got a bunch of lower offers and top 20 instant rejections within the first week. Then full weeks of radio silence, including dozens of journals ignoring expedite deadlines. I was just about to close up shop when I got a top 30 offer and top 20 board review notification today. I have no idea what it all means, other than it doesn't seem like it's ever quite over when you think it might be. That said, this season I got rejected by NULR and Cal, with silence from the other three. I've heard but not confirmed that those three have a policy of rejection by silence.

Posted by: It's a Mystery | Apr 4, 2017 8:59:19 PM

Many have posted on Scholastica that they are closing this week so I suggest taking what you have. I'm still waiting on most of the places I submitted to. Thinking about emailing to find out status...

Posted by: C | Apr 4, 2017 8:05:31 PM

Any empirical pieces still hanging tight? I've had a couple of offers and hoping to hear from a few more schools before deciding what to do. The silence in this thread makes me wonder whether I should hold out hope of a T-20 offer, or whether that ship has sailed... Still hoping to hear from Chicago, NULR, Cal, USC, UVA. Any intel on their processes? Anyone ever called them up to see if your piece is still in the running? (Please, editors, if you're seeing this, just send the darn rejections. Form letters are fine!)

Posted by: empiricalanon | Apr 4, 2017 3:19:23 PM

I would go with Mary first, then Fordham, then William.

Posted by: anon | Apr 3, 2017 9:20:16 AM

Fordham, hands down.

Posted by: LawProf | Apr 2, 2017 11:20:26 PM

Between William & Mary and Fordham, which one would you choose? Thanks!

Posted by: choose | Apr 2, 2017 10:31:53 PM

Thanks all for the comments. Those statistics highlight why it seems like such a toss up to me. My perhaps biased observation (as a Californian) is that the US News rankings unfairly penalize Cali schools for lower employment figures without accounting for the generally weak economic environment out here, whereas rankings like W&L seem to benefit east coast schools in bigger markets (especially NYC schools) because they reach a wider readership and are cited more as a result. I could be completely wrong on both points and I'm not really making a value judgment, at least insofar as choosing a placement. I guess I'm just not sure whether someone in my position should assume hiring committees treat US News as gospel, W&L as gospel, have biases towards or against certain schools or geographical areas, etc. That said, this is a good problem to have and I'll be happy with either placement.

Posted by: Coin Flip | Apr 2, 2017 7:28:01 PM

A) Hastings peer ranking: 3.1: Cardozo peer ranking: 2.7
B) Hastings overall US New: 54 : Cardozo overall US News: 65.
C) Hastings Law Journal meta rating: 36: Cardozo Law Review meta ranking: 42
D) Hastings L.J. on Washington and Lee combined score general law reviews: 31: Cardozo Law Review on Washington and Lee combined score general law reviews: 26
E) Hastings L.J. Washington and Lee law review cites: 31: Cardozo Law Review on Washington and Lee law review cites: 23.

Posted by: AnnProf | Apr 2, 2017 6:26:28 PM

Cardozo, hands down. Most think of it as a T50 journals -- Hastings is currently in a nose dive. Who knows where it'll be in a few years, and if it falls, so too will the value of your placement there.

Posted by: LawProf | Apr 2, 2017 5:11:31 PM

if you want east coast i would maybe go with cardozo, if you want west then hastings. Also i would go with the not that will publish earlier if that does not settle it.

Posted by: anon | Apr 2, 2017 2:26:37 PM

Coin Flip. I would say it is much of a muchness. All things being equal I would probably go with Hastings but as others have suggested, if one will publish earlier, I might go with that one...

Posted by: C | Apr 2, 2017 2:15:16 PM

I know the submission season is winding down, but for some reason it has started to heat up over the last 48-72 hours for me. I received offers from Hastings and Cardozo and am trying to figure out which one to accept. Hastings is 54 US news and 30 W&L. Cardozo is 65 US News and 26 W&L. Both are thus "over performers." For context, I am a new professor who will either be looking to secure a VAP in the fall or will be going directly on the market. Thanks in advance for any guidance.

Posted by: Coin Flip | Apr 2, 2017 12:15:42 PM

That wasn't Alabama; I find his misogyny repellent.

Posted by: Anon | Apr 1, 2017 5:46:02 PM

Yep, the fat lady has sung. Hope it worked out okay for everyone!

Posted by: LawProf | Apr 1, 2017 11:38:47 AM

Is this cycle officially over?

Posted by: Arnold | Apr 1, 2017 10:03:16 AM

the angsting thread has delivered this cycle. What a free-for-all!

Posted by: rankit | Mar 31, 2017 3:25:42 PM

Lol at Alabama posting as anon 2:55.

Posted by: anon | Mar 31, 2017 3:21:01 PM

"nobody cares about this petty squabble!"

Yes, let's stop being petty and get back to the more philosophically profound discussion about whether a T20 mainline law review is better than a HYS specialty for maximizing one's social status and paycheck at the expense of any other concerns. That's certainly the kind of thing the great minds of jurisprudence were fixated on.

Posted by: anon | Mar 31, 2017 2:55:18 PM

When does the submissions season generally end? Mid April?

Posted by: H | Mar 31, 2017 3:41:03 AM


Posted by: spreadsheet link | Mar 30, 2017 8:13:30 PM

T90 offer today.

Posted by: anon | Mar 30, 2017 8:06:30 PM

writing quickly on a phone, please excuse the typos. :) Anyhow, the numbers show that the best specialties do better than many T-X flagships.

Posted by: Nona | Mar 30, 2017 6:36:13 PM

approximation*. Also, I'm not a fan of the wads of anecdotal insights offered as evidence, e.g. putting down T-10 specialties. The same could said for many T-50 flagships. This is where W/L is helpful. Crappy articles in consistently poor journals are simply cite les ovee th long run.

Posted by: Nona | Mar 30, 2017 6:32:48 PM

Law journal staffs have two-year turnovers. As such, the quality of their selection/editing process largely depends on the quality of the school. Unsurprisingly, US News is (flawed yet nonetheless) the best approxation available, while W/L is an excellent supplement that accounts for other factors.

Posted by: Nona | Mar 30, 2017 6:29:21 PM

As a scholar who do international law myself, I have to say that the quality of the articles that I have read in T-10 international journals is quite low. Some people may opt for a T-10 int'l journal for prestige of the school that publishes it, but that doesn't detract from the fact that it is so much easier to publish in T-10 int'l journals than in T-50 mainline law reviews.

The subject matters Alabama cited (international trade and arbitration, South China Sea, etc.) are indeed quite important. But the sad truth is that very few in legal academia care about them. Just check how many schools even have full-time tenure-track faculty members who write in bread-and-butter international trade law. And compare that to the number of schools that have tenure-track faculty members in international human rights or political theory.

Posted by: intl anon | Mar 30, 2017 5:18:43 PM

Can we please move on -- nobody cares about this petty squabble!

Posted by: LawProf | Mar 30, 2017 5:06:56 PM

Maryland rejection stating the volume is full.

Posted by: C | Mar 30, 2017 5:04:00 PM

This is the original Anon, who pointed out Alabama's ironic sloppiness in equating admiralty law with feminism in today's political climate. "Radical feminism" is a term of art referring to a particular strain of structural feminism. I'm sure many women would rather be frazzled career women than disgruntled housewives. I think the empirical claim that most women haven't benefited from feminist tenets, even radical feminist tenets (VAWA? Laws in many states aimed at gender discrimination?) is a bit laughable and reflects a sloppiness that is common when legal scholars confuse anecdote with data.

Bringing this conversation back to the topic at hand, I think many scholars (most scholars?) think their specialties are special. I'm sure international law seems very important to international law scholars. Guess what? Criminal law scholars, race and the law scholars, and feminist scholars, all feel the same way.

If law professors were a sensible bunch, we would assess whether to publish in journals based on their actual impact and the journal's reputation within our fields, not by US New rankings that have very little to do with a journal's quality. Instead we make excuses about our colleagues' unwillingness to look at independent journal rankings to excuse our unaltered, and irrational pursuit of prestige, even to the detriment of quality.

Posted by: Anon | Mar 30, 2017 4:26:20 PM

Junior Prof,
If you really see a moral equivalency between my and Alabama's positions then yes, you wouldn't want me evaluating you for a position.

Posted by: D.C. | Mar 30, 2017 4:03:07 PM

I'm with you Junior Prof! Let's get back to the benign nonsense that is what we are here for :)

Posted by: C | Mar 30, 2017 3:30:01 PM

As a junior prof, that exchange is everything I fear about my career advancement. Two petty fools like that on hiring and tenure committees and we stand no chance.

Posted by: Junior Prof | Mar 30, 2017 2:45:34 PM

Between the cat fights and the Star Wars references, it's always a good idea to have popcorn on hand when reading the Angsting threads.

Posted by: Facepalm | Mar 30, 2017 2:04:49 PM

To quote the original Star Wars movie: "Stay on target."

Law review submission, of course, being the Death Star run.

Posted by: Nona | Mar 30, 2017 1:15:36 PM

Ahhhh, "Alabama," I just figured out who you are in real life. Trust me, "established" is probably not the best descriptor of your reputation. And considering your history I really don't think you're one to be accusing others of being easily ruffled.

Posted by: D.C. | Mar 30, 2017 11:52:54 AM

Hey DC thanks for the personal insult of calling me incompetent but I wont return the insult. Once you hit your 50s and you are well-established these things dont ruffle you as when you are younger.
Anyway, if you are a man and you support/embrace the failed feminist ideology that is pathetic.

Posted by: Alabama | Mar 30, 2017 11:01:45 AM

I said "not as important," not "not relevant." Your examples do not represent some overwhelming body of legal work that renders international law somehow in a different category than other legal specialties.

And if that "ma'am" is aimed at me, I'm a man, don't even work in feminist legal studies, and yet still know enough to realize that you're strawmanning is absurd to the point of incompetence.

Posted by: D.C. | Mar 30, 2017 10:15:54 AM

The angsting thread. Come for the dread and regret of all your life choices, stay for the argument over feminism vs. international law. I just like the idea that Admiralty law, which has been around for as long as we've seen other people with ships and thought "Gosh, I'd like to take that," is a junior specialty.

Posted by: mpark6288 | Mar 30, 2017 10:11:10 AM

Ms DC, your claim that half the population is happy from radical feminism is laughable. Rampant divorce and miserable "career" women do not exactly corroborate your claim.
As to international law, you simply are clueless - trade and investment treaty arbitration is not important? Extra-territorial application of anti-bribery laws such as the FCPA - not relevant? Sovereignty disputes in the South China Seas - not significant? Human rights and corporate liability - just a "theory".
Yes ma'am, international law is nothing compared to "why women dont need men" or "all men are rapists" or "men and women why should bathroom signs matter".

Posted by: Alabama | Mar 30, 2017 9:07:05 AM

Seriously, Alabama? Core feminist ideals have certainly brought happiness to a significant chunk of half of the population.

Also, considering that a good portion of "international law" consists of academics setting forth theories and arguments that are subsequently ignored in actual international politics, I would not presume your field quite as important as you would like to think.

For example, comparing the impact factors of the top 10 international law journals with those of the top gender law journals, the difference is not particularly striking.

Posted by: D.C. | Mar 30, 2017 8:46:34 AM

Ms Anon 7:11
What is "amusing" in what I stated about international law journals? I pointed out that when some posters discuss specialties (i.e., non flagship law reviews) they are throwing all "specialties" together in terms of prestige and marketability and I believe that is a mistake. If you have a point to make counter it, make it. We'd love to hear it.
As to your social commentary, to be honest, I think radical feminist theory (which most of these feminist journals focus on) is already in retreat as feminism has not brought happiness to the masses and frankly, a host of social disorder and societal break-down. It is an abject failure and is being rejected by the vast majority of women.
Carry on Ms. Anon.

Posted by: Alabama | Mar 30, 2017 12:30:44 AM

Quick Question: Is humblebragging allowed in this thread? Asking for a colleague.

Posted by: Jack | Mar 30, 2017 12:16:41 AM

I'm here to express my amusement at Alabama equating "feminism" to admiralty law. What a thoroughly ironic and unreflective statement in the era of Women's marches and mass social movements for change.

That is all.

Carry on.

Posted by: Anon | Mar 29, 2017 7:11:01 PM

Well at least you heard from BC - that is probably a good sign.

So I guess the law review "experiment" of moving to Scholastica and charging $6.50 a submission has not worked to reduce submissions...

Posted by: anon | Mar 29, 2017 6:39:45 PM

Did anyone submit a book review to Michigan? If so, any updates on where they are in the process?

Posted by: anonlawprof | Mar 29, 2017 6:12:19 PM

it seems to me that BCLR and a lot of other non-responding journals are ignoring expedite requests and are doing the we-will-get-to-it-when-we-get-to-it approach. Though its quite absurd that there are still that many pieces/expedites available this late in the cycle.

Posted by: vliet | Mar 29, 2017 6:01:23 PM

B.C. L. Rev should do what other law reviews do - pick 3-4 articles, then send a group e-mail to the rest saying "oops, we're full! we hope you consider us next cycle, so we can tell you we're full again."

Posted by: Arnold | Mar 29, 2017 5:58:57 PM

vliet, i'm sorry you've gotten caught up in their mess. does their math makes sense to you? more expedite deadlines than articles?
and should we send them some donuts?

Posted by: Mem Fox | Mar 29, 2017 5:46:09 PM

and my expedite already gave them 10 days--and it is my 3rd round of expedite...

Posted by: vliet | Mar 29, 2017 5:43:54 PM

B.C. L. Rev. says it is "currently reviewing more than 800 articles with over 1800 expedite deadlines" and wants at least 2 weeks with my expedite request...

Posted by: vliet | Mar 29, 2017 5:41:36 PM

agree with c, and it may be a self-perpetuating problem. The W/L ranking will def scare off authors of better articles who puzzle over it - I know it would spook me. Gotta dig out of that rut.

Posted by: rankit | Mar 29, 2017 4:31:04 PM

Arnold. W&L is pretty clear in terms of its methodology, and I don't know why you would think specialty journal rankings are less accurate than flagships. Stanford Int'l L. has an impact factor of .36, which means that its articles aren't being cited very often. And this considers the number of articles published per year. So yeah, I would hold it against the journal - it doesn't seem to be doing a good job of selecting good/relevant articles (if one assumes, which I think one has to, or else what the heck do you measure, that there is a correlation between citations and article quality/relevance).

Posted by: c | Mar 29, 2017 4:07:02 PM

With respect to Stanford and specialties, some here are conflating international and specialty. While years ago the perspective was markedly different, today because of globalization and economic integration, international law is not a junior specialty (such as "feminism" or "admiralty"). Many important legal issues such as trade, investment treaties, human rights and sovereignty are important legal issues AND significant issues with respect to economic and financial litigation/arbitration. Examples: international sanctions, money laundering laws, anti-bribery laws, corporate liability for violations of international law, etc are all significant in today's legal and business worlds.
So international law journals are not "specialties" and I would certainly value a T14 international law journal over a lower ranked flagship.

Posted by: Alabama | Mar 29, 2017 4:01:02 PM

Something does seem to be wrong in terms of the W&L ranking of Stanford int'l l, but I wouldn't hold it against the journal. It's hard to tell how accurate W&L is when it comes to specialty journals. On the other hand, I don't remember reading articles from Stan int'l l any time recently.

Posted by: Arnold | Mar 29, 2017 3:56:32 PM

Esp. for T5 flagships and specialties not founded within the past 10 years. Like I said, an interesting case.

Posted by: Nona | Mar 29, 2017 3:47:38 PM

Arnold, there usually isn't a W/L gap of 500+ between flagships and specialties.

Posted by: Nona | Mar 29, 2017 3:46:14 PM

Nona, specialty journals are traditionally ranked lower than their mainline counterparts. Stanford int'l l is a leading journal in the field, without a doubt.

Posted by: Arnold | Mar 29, 2017 3:40:14 PM

Stanford int'l l. Is definitely T-3. I'm going both by US News, as well as W&L specialty ranking.

Posted by: Arnold | Mar 29, 2017 3:39:01 PM

Stanford int'l is a bizarre case. Founded in the 60s, yet consistently in the W&L doldrums... might have something to do with it publishing only two issues a year. In any case their W&L ranking is so bad that it must be of some influence in the expedite game, and reason for pause.

Posted by: Nona | Mar 29, 2017 3:29:03 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.