« Circuit split on public officials' Twitter accounts | Main | Tulane Forrester Fellowship 2021-2022 »

Friday, January 29, 2021

Submission Angsting Spring 2021

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, but please be patient.)

Posted by Sarah Lawsky on January 29, 2021 at 11:48 AM in Law Review Review | Permalink


Guest 3 - that's a really helpful dichotomy and as plausible a reading of the tea leaves as I've seen. Into the first category, it seems we can put Wisconsin, Iowa, Colorado, BU, Washington, and UCLA, as well. Into the second category goes Wash U, in addition to Duke and the others. Longevity in category 1 *may* be a good sign. Longevity in category 2 is utterly meaningless.

Posted by: anon | Feb 24, 2021 11:26:12 AM

I would believe that journals are looking for opportunities to publish scholars from groups that have been historically under-represented in top law school faculities and top law journal publications. But I assume that simply means "making sure we pull the articles out of the monstrously large pile and consider them." I would not assume - do not believe - it means any different standard is applied. And implying in the spreadsheet that you could have avoided the Yale rejection by showing your surname, so the editors would know the article was coming from someone with a historically subordinated perspective, even if meant as a ruefel joke, is awfully close to implying that the person who received the quick offer received it for THAT reason. And that wouldo not be ok. Not anymore than allowing white students to treat their Black classmates as if they weren't qualified for admission, and not anymore than assuming a Black associate wouldn't be at the firm without affirmative action. This isn't a perfect system. Some really excellent work ends up in lower ranked journals. And some of it is much better than work that publishes in higher ranked journals. It's published. Your job is to teach and write. This is not the Hunger Games. Put the knives away. Let other people enjoy their accomplishments -- celebrate their accomplishments -- without implying that their gender or race account for their placements.

Posted by: really? | Feb 24, 2021 11:00:30 AM

FWIW, I can give one anecdote that might help illustrate why people get so emotional here. I have a friend who has been trying to get a LawProf position abroad. Alas, in that country, he was told that given the competitiveness of the selection process, any law review publication in a journal below a certain threshold (say t50) is not counted. In other words, he remains unemployed unless his piece gets accepted to a solid flagship. In this situation, I can fully understand the rage of facing unfair processes and the obsession with expedites and ranking - for him, it is literally "publish [in a high-ranked] journal or perish".
As a side note, I fully agree with the comment made earlier regarding the difference between blaming a specific person and blaming the system. Sayings like "Harvard Law Review" are so and so, is not the same like saying "X, who is an editor at HLR, is" so and so.
Finally, regarding the Yale discussion - I don't think anyone here was criticizing the author, whose paper may-well be top-notch and "deserving" (insofar that there is such a thing) of a top publication. The criticism is about the disparity in treatment and "how it looks". For this, I'll end with the famous quote "Not only must Justice be done; it must also be seen to be done"..

Posted by: anon | Feb 24, 2021 10:58:35 AM

I could be totally misreading the tea leaves, but my sense from doing this for a while is that Harvard, Stanford, Columbia, Chicago, and maybe Michigan and NYU tend to move through/reject nonexpedited pieces first, and then reject expedited pieces closer to their expedite deadlines. Duke, Virginia and Cornell seem to make offers on a piece-by-piece basis first before making any rejections, and then when they get the number of pieces they want they reject everything else, clearing the queue. Those seem to be the two major workflow models, but I'm sure there are others. Would be happy to be corrected on any of this!

Posted by: Guest3 | Feb 24, 2021 10:46:27 AM

Hi, stayinalive, I'm the person who posted about Harvard. I'm still alive at Columbia and other places (like Michigan, BU, Vanderbilt) that have been active and have dinged non-expedites. However, it strikes me in reviewing the thread that Chicago seems to ding things fairly methodically within 7 days. That was the case for me. If you are alive beyond that point, I would speculate you may have survived a first cut.

Posted by: anon | Feb 24, 2021 10:44:14 AM

same question as anon about time with pieces. I'm still "alive" at Chicago and Columbia, but not sure if this means my piece is being considered, it hasn't been reviewed yet, or is sitting in some sort of backup pile. I'm alive at other places as well, but if they haven't been super active, I don't take this to mean anything.

Posted by: stayinalive | Feb 24, 2021 10:27:34 AM

"idk a handful of earlier comments are not even thinly veiled racism about how Yale’s decision was motivated by the desire to appear “unbiased.” ...

It is important to point out the falsehood of this accusation of racism. Law review editors acknowledge that they use race and other personal characteristics when selecting articles. Some acknowledge it openly; others are coy, but it is reasonable to believe that all do, especially when they are under intense public pressure to do it. That known practice casts a shadow across selection decisions. (I say this as a person in an URM group.) It is a denial of reality to ignore this known fact when we observe egregious departures from stated selection procedures. Arguing that racial preferences are unjust (perhaps especially when they are done in secret) is not racist.

Posted by: nonny | Feb 24, 2021 10:20:16 AM

Does anyone know whether it's possible to draw inferences from time Harvard spends with a piece? Harvard has been pretty well represented on the thread, and it seems to have some pieces for weeks until expedite deadlines force (negative) decisions and to reject others, not expedited, within a week. Is this just random -- some editors are faster than others? Any former Harvard AEs (or experienced hands) out there with insight? Thanks.

Posted by: anon | Feb 24, 2021 10:19:05 AM

I don't know whether the process was skewed. I do know, though, that the article makes an extraordinarily meaningful contribution to the literature. I would have given a toe or two to have written it.

Posted by: Axel Foley | Feb 24, 2021 9:53:21 AM

anyone heard from notre dame lately?

Posted by: anon | Feb 24, 2021 9:49:00 AM

Axel Foley: Writing it in caps does not establish the point. You do not know if the paper DESERVES to be there, if you know that the process was skewed.

Posted by: JJ | Feb 24, 2021 9:48:56 AM

+1 Axel Foley. Well said.

Posted by: anon | Feb 24, 2021 9:45:57 AM

I agree with Nana (and others), angsting mixed with the overt racism on the spreadsheet is horrific. Accusations that certain posters are really YLJ editors etc approach the level of qanon-style conspiracy theories. Was the process fair in leading to the YLJ offer? Who knows. None of us were there to oversee what went into it. That said, the scholar in question is absolutely fantastic who does fantastic work--the piece DESERVES to be there. I'm just really embarrassed right now to think that most of us are privileged to have the greatest job in the world, and we're using our anonymous platform to attack students.

Posted by: Axel Foley | Feb 24, 2021 9:34:57 AM

The proximate cause of the vast majority of problems is the expedite process. If expedite was eliminated these problems would be gone. The process is maligned and it is archaic but that is the system. Not all the problems would be eliminated but a clear majority. It would also de-stress the many here who do expedite. Personally I do not expedite but I am in the very limited minority. I only send to those I would accept from and have happily done so for the last 15 years. I do not spend the enormous empotional energy on expediting. Sure at times do not get accepted some cycles...who cares?...re-submit next time or next AY and you get your acceptance. Yes I am also quite aware that there practices described here as "corrupt" practices where editors at times (not always but it does indeed happen, trust me) are provided suggested papers by Deans or other faculty members - this is a form of exchanging favors. Nothing can be done about this. While this may not be fair put yourselves in the shoes of the editors - they want a "hit" something solid which they can get from the sage advice of the senior faculty/Dean. You really expect students to evaluate scholarship - being experts in every field? It is a godesend to receive recommendations of "pre-screened" articles (ie someone who is an expert and knows the paper is decent and is tacitly approving making an offer) and that is the same as letterhead bias. You would do the same even though you rail against it but the students are overwhelmed with submissions. What do you expect? And be honest - most of you would also engage in this if you had the ability to. Welcome to "Real Life 101".

Posted by: Realist | Feb 24, 2021 7:49:44 AM

After more than three weeks, an offer from an international law journal at a school well outside the top 20. The longest wait I've had in 15 years of submissions. So it can happen, but it may take a lot longer than normal. And remember: these are not normal times. If we are in the privileged position of submitting law review articles in the middle of a pandemic, we have so much to be grateful for.

Posted by: international law | Feb 24, 2021 7:11:42 AM

Anonforthis, the fact that you haven't gotten a bite yet three weeks into the submission of your first article as a TT prof means literally nothing. There are a ton of great articles circulating right now that are getting no attention from LR editors, in large part because there are way too many legit articles looking for a home.

It's easy to say and hard to do but don't let the nonsensical nature of this process get to you.

Posted by: Angsting Prof | Feb 24, 2021 12:33:56 AM

The tone policing in this thread is extreme, and honestly is the most prominent "new" feature of this thread. Back in the day, people kvetched a little, and we just moved on, now, if one makes the slightest negative comment about the process, the poster is attacked to the extreme. This leads to even more negativity. How about we all just think we're entitled to our position and feelings and move on?

Posted by: x | Feb 24, 2021 12:32:13 AM

@Bertrall Ross: thank you, truly, for taking the time to write that. Exactly what I needed to hear, and good suggestion to try to dive into the next project.

Posted by: AnonForThis | Feb 24, 2021 12:32:00 AM

AForeignJuniorProf, When I decide to expedite, I always expedite to the top. Otherwise you risk having the fiasco that someone described earlier: you get no bites on your limited expedites, you accept your offer, and then before you withdraw everywhere else you get a higher offer. But then it's too late. Who wants that? Others, however, are concerned about what the offering journal's rank "signals" to the higher journals, and they don't expedite all the way up. I think that's reading too much into it. Will a journal reject you just because you got an offer from J-130? I suspect that, at worst, they'll ignore it, and you can grab their attention again when you get the second offer and re-expedite.

ck, I can't make any sense of your post. Can you restate it?

anonforthis, have you submitted broadly enough? You could do that, I suppose.

Posted by: Michael Cicchini | Feb 24, 2021 12:23:02 AM

This angsting has taken a gross turn. If this was a 1-day turnaround for Sunstein, then I can see the argument that it is a symptom of a larger problem. But I just don't see the argument at all in this case. This is correcting for bias in favor of a very strong article by a junior scholar. Isn't that closer to the world we want.

Posted by: anon | Feb 24, 2021 12:14:42 AM


What I would say is that your whole career is not on the line with this first submissions during your first year as a tenure track professors during COVID with childcare responsibilities. Think about what you just wrote and recognize that you, like many of us, have been through a lot and we are the fortunate ones to the extent we have managed to stay safe and healthy with our loved ones.

I very much know the feeling of panic from my early years in the academy and can remember plenty of dreadful and depressing days and nights hoping and waiting for someone to extend an offer. And on a couple of occasions, an acceptance never came during the first time I submitted but it did eventually come. To the extent it is possible (and I know that it is not possible for everyone during these stressful times) try to start thinking about or doing research for that next article. I think the distraction will be a reminder of one of the reasons why you chose to be an academic and how exciting and gratifying it can be to think through and develop new ideas. And recognize that this article WILL place, it is just a matter of when.

Posted by: Bertrall Ross | Feb 23, 2021 11:25:27 PM

Some of these comments targeting the YLJ author on the discussion list and in the spreadsheet are awful and unacceptable. Yes, the 1 day review is not great on YLJ's part. That said, this author is doing cutting edge, novel, and straight-up brilliant work in her field. it's just really sad to see these comments targeting a rising star who is has spent years working really hard to hone her craft and develop her ideas (and I know this because I am a former colleague of the author's from years back).

Posted by: anon | Feb 23, 2021 11:20:13 PM

Returning to the general angsting, could any of the slightly more senior folks here speak to the overwhelming feelings of imposter syndrome/panic that come from hearing *crickets* in response to your first article submission? I'm a junior TT whose first year was derailed by the usual (covid, no child care, etc) and it feels like my entire career hangs on this one article. Anything to do except continue hitting refresh?

Posted by: anonforthis | Feb 23, 2021 11:06:10 PM

idk a handful of earlier comments are not even thinly veiled racism about how Yale’s decision was motivated by the desire to appear “unbiased.” there is not this kind of concern for the ~integrity of the process~ when a lower ranked journal makes an offer in under two days to an author who is better able to remain anonymous (and remain presumed white). I broadly agree that this whole process is bad. I also think some of you are telling on yourselves.

Posted by: ck | Feb 23, 2021 9:57:18 PM

If I have an offer from T-130, to which range of law reviews should I send expedited decision requests? T100? T75 or to the top? Would there be negative impacts if I expedite too far?

Posted by: AForeignJuniorProf | Feb 23, 2021 9:48:24 PM

I think an important distinction needs to be made here in the forms of criticism being made in this comments section. Pointing out the inconsistencies of a law review as an institution is vastly different than targeting specific editors, students, or individuals. The former should be within the acceptable purview of this thread. The latter is completely unacceptable.

If you've ever talked to a T10 editor or a submissions team, then they will talk about how they have a very lengthy review process filled with multiple steps where different groups of editors make decisions on a piece before they send out an acceptance. They will also play up both the anonymity (if they use it) and peer review process instituted by the journal. There is no way that such a process can be completely in a thorough and diligent manner in a single day. Absolutely none. Either how they present their review process to the world is false and/or they skipped steps in that process in order to grab a particular article. Either is deserving of criticism on multiple grounds.

The previous paragraph says nothing about the actual quality of any particular pieces or authors, nor about any particular students or editors. This is a procedural/transparency based criticism of a law review as an institution. That is very different than casting rancor or aspersions and to label such criticism as "whining" is to attempt to delegitimize our very ability to criticize the institutions involved in our livelihoods (for better or worse).

I don't want to continue down this rabbit hole of debate, but I think the institution vs. person distinction needed to be drawn so valid institutional criticism isn't chilled in light of this hostility.

Posted by: DoubleSecretAnon | Feb 23, 2021 9:30:45 PM

@ck Of course everyone has considered that it might be good, just as we have considered that an article someone said was rejected by [third tier law school] might be good. The point is that there is no basis for thinking it more likely in the YLJ-acceptance case than in the [rejected by 3rd tier law school]case.

Posted by: endoftheworldasweknowit | Feb 23, 2021 8:23:12 PM

Whispers, I think that's a very safe bet. As I mentioned a couple of weeks ago in this thread, it's just much easier to generate material and submit it than it was a generation ago, and in addition the competition to get a TT law school job is much more intense. It's no wonder that reviews are overwhelmed with submissions.

Posted by: Angsting Prof | Feb 23, 2021 7:49:35 PM

Maybe placement is getting more difficult, arbitrary, and network-dependent because there's an oversupply of legal scholarship.

Posted by: **whispers** | Feb 23, 2021 7:15:42 PM

Can we get back to angsting? I never assumed that I, a newbie, would be on the same footing as, say, Richard Fallon or Cass Sunstein, in this process. Obviously, there's letterhead bias that keeps them publishing without breaking a sweat. Can you blame the law review editors? I don't.

Posted by: anon | Feb 23, 2021 6:17:54 PM

Nana, it wasn't directed at you.

This particular submissions season has just driven home how dysfunctional all this is with special force.

It's true there are no perfect systems, but this one is just getting increasingly ridiculous.

Posted by: Angsting Prof | Feb 23, 2021 6:14:44 PM

Angsting, I think it's perfectly reasonable to have a discussion about issues such as letterhead bias, length-of-author-note bias, the appropriateness of journal editors accepting recommendations from professors they trust, and the like. There has been good empirical work on these questions recently. I would not call the process "corrupt" or "absurd," though, even though these particular quirks always work to my disadvantage (and I rarely place in T30). We always talk about the costs and benefits of this system, and the costs and benefits of alternative approaches, as well as the impediments to adoption of alternative approaches . . . and it's a conversation worth having. But the tone of the posts -- the combativeness law professors on this thread are expressing towards each other, and the harshness of the language directed at the second and third year law students we are responsible for training -- is, in my view, inexcusable. This is now how we teach our students to interact with opposing counsel (or busy law firm / judicial staff implementing policies they inherited); why is it acceptable with other law professors and towards law journal staff? But perhaps your comment wasn't directed to me. And I'll be done with this topic now. I will go back to refreshing my email every 4 minutes.

Posted by: nana | Feb 23, 2021 6:07:24 PM


don't you have some SSRN drafts to peruse?

Posted by: thegreatdisappointment | Feb 23, 2021 6:05:16 PM

I just want to echo others saying that this has devolved into a total professional embarrassment, and I hope Sarah closes this thread for this cycle at least.

Posted by: anonymous | Feb 23, 2021 6:03:17 PM

When a journal opens later than others, and is in the range you are currently expediting, do you submit and then immediately expedite, or do you wait a day or two so it doesn't seem odd?

Posted by: instaexpedite | Feb 23, 2021 6:02:10 PM

Lawprof, I don't know that I am making an argument so much as offering advice for a happy submission season. It is what it is. Moaning and making ourselves look bad on this forum does not change that it is what it is.

Indeed, shaming law review editors (perhaps instead of writing to their faculty advisor directly with clear cogent concerns), picking on an author with the good fortune to get a YLJ offer, in however many hours or days, and otherwise making jabs at each other is not helpful, and deteriorates the usefulness of this board. I very much appreciate Nona's remarks, and will not comment further.

Posted by: seriously? | Feb 23, 2021 6:01:33 PM

Those who publish in the top law journals are all about privilege. This latest example from YLJ is just more of the same.

Posted by: AnonProf | Feb 23, 2021 5:57:39 PM

I'm very senior, having been a law prof for more than 30 years, so I have very little riding on this process besides pride. So I think I have some standing to say that it's getting worse and more arbitrary and unfair all the time. I feel awful for people who are trying to get tenure, or a job, who are navigating this absurd and corrupt process.

Throwing up your hands and criticizing people who are pointing this out with no better argument than "this is just the way it is -- so shut up already" is pathetic, and you should be ashamed to make such an argument if you're a teacher and an academic.

Posted by: Angsting Prof | Feb 23, 2021 5:56:20 PM

"accept the reality", seriously? What argument even is this? Do you also teach your students to accept realities where there are irregularities and procedural flaws? This is just an embarrassing argument to make.

Posted by: Lawprof | Feb 23, 2021 5:47:45 PM

I have participated on this board for years. I don't understand what is happening this year. There is always a little grumbling about the comparative advantages and disadvantages of the law review process and the peer review process, but I have never before seen the hostility, sniping, rancor, whining, and frankly childishness that participants on this thread are exhibiting this year. I expect and assume that this is a function of the stress that we are all under this year (and have all been under for twelve months now). But it is really disturbing coming from legal scholars. Most of us are (or were) officers of the court. We are responsible for teaching the next generations of lawyers who come after us, and we are responsible for setting a good example but and in particular interacting with each other (and students) with courtesy, integrity, good humor, and respect. The fact that you can omit your name from your posts does not change who you are. I think folks should take a step back and remember who they are, why they are law professors (or lawyers), and how they ought to be behaving here. Integrity is who you are when no one is watching (or no one knows your name).

Posted by: nana, scolding finally | Feb 23, 2021 5:46:40 PM

I think the mistake is to assume that there is a process that is always followed. Accept the reality (that there is not, and this is the Hunger Games or gambling), or stop complaining about it. But there is a difference between where this thread starts and where it always ends - it starts with hopeful musings trying to read the tea leaves (which never works anyway), and then always ends with sour grapes and lashing out at student editors (why not their faculty advisors instead?). The former type of angsting is endearing and amusing, the latter type is unbecoming and concerning.

Posted by: seriously? | Feb 23, 2021 5:44:42 PM

And if the explanation is "we saw it on SSRN way before it was submitted and liked it" at least be transparent and upfront about your policy of also looking at SSRN in addition to your submissions system. Some of us don't even upload our drafts on SSRN before they're placed in a journal. This prevents everyone from getting an equal opportunity.

Posted by: Lawprof | Feb 23, 2021 5:36:30 PM

@thegreatdissapointment - wow. Do you really have so little to do? Again, this kind of angsting makes us all look bad. No, I am not a Yale AE, and indeed, did not attend Yale. I am, perhaps less and less proudly the more I read the comments here, a law professor.

Also, re: your first comment - I did not say law students are infallible - or do you now know what the Hunger Games are? That doesn't mean that what they are doing is not difficult and the students do not deserve respect for the effort.

Posted by: seriously? | Feb 23, 2021 5:35:32 PM

The "if it were happen to you" is a fallacy. This isn't the point. Good for the author, but it doesn't change the potential procedural flaws in the process. If it takes YLJ an average of ten days to reject a piece, then it's likely to take even longer to accept a piece. 21 hours is an anomaly that cannot be explained by an article just being that good.

Posted by: Lawprof | Feb 23, 2021 5:32:16 PM

Are we all going to pretend "seriously?" isn't a Yale AE trying to defend the journal's actions?

Posted by: thegreatdisappointment | Feb 23, 2021 5:30:04 PM

Seriously? is correct

Law review editors are infallible

Posted by: thegreatdisappointment | Feb 23, 2021 5:27:02 PM

All of you up in arms about the YLJ acceptance, just stop - it is not becoming. If it was your article, you would not be complaining. Who cares? Can't we just say, "good for the author, and on with the hunger games?" Because really, if we thought this was something more than the academic hunger games, we were deluding ourselves.

Also, law review editors, I remember being in your shoes, and going without sleep in order to try and get through the pile. Keep your head up. All this angsting from the professors is because we have a silly amount of our self worth wrapped up in 25,000 words. That says more about us than it does about the editors.

Posted by: seriously? | Feb 23, 2021 5:24:21 PM


no, WashU usually makes its offers in March.

Posted by: theitsybitsypractitioner | Feb 23, 2021 5:16:18 PM

Every law professor who publicly supports this joke of a system is helping to perpetuate it (I mean more than the rest of us, which is bad enough).

I don't blame the students, because this is how we train them to behave and think -- like they know what they're doing, when they don't.

The fulsome lies on the elite review sites about their extensive and careful blind review processes are a bit much though.

Posted by: Angsting Prof | Feb 23, 2021 5:13:06 PM


great point. the article in question is, in fact, very very good. it was initially made available a year ago. I just don't the issue here.

Posted by: anon | Feb 23, 2021 5:11:00 PM

A slew of Wash U rejections just came in. Is that a sign that they're wrapping up?

Posted by: anony | Feb 23, 2021 5:09:25 PM


yeah, sorry bro, nobody actually read your piece. like, they never even read the title.

chin up, though. it's not a reflection on you.

Posted by: thegreatdisappointment | Feb 23, 2021 5:07:40 PM

RE: the less-than-one-day Yale acceptance

Remember that student editors are philosopher kings in training and it is not your place to question their Cincinnatus-like virtue.

Everything they do is done with a wisdom that the likes of you will never know.

Posted by: thegreatdisappointment | Feb 23, 2021 5:02:45 PM

I am sure it is, and I have no issue with law review editors watching SSRN for promising new articles and doing their due diligence before formal submission. Many recommend posting on SSRN for this reason, and I've heard law review editors say that they do this -- watch SSRN. No issues with that!

My objection is not to the quick Yale acceptance: I say congrats! It's to the folks who "mail in" their drafts, because they can foist a lot of the cleaning up and source work to second year law students. I take some pride in usually needing very minimal style edits and having complete footnotes, and I think the folks who are prestigious enough that they can dispense with this work (minions will do it ...) are a pox.

Posted by: nana, clarifying | Feb 23, 2021 4:56:48 PM

idk have we considered that maybe the paper is actually good

Posted by: ck | Feb 23, 2021 4:44:03 PM

Meanwhile those of us at more middling schools shed blood, sweat, and tears ensuring that everything is robustly supported by thorough (and carefully checked footnotes) and revise the text above the line repeatedly for not only cohesiveness and persuasiveness but fluidity and grace.

Posted by: nana, grumbling | Feb 23, 2021 4:34:46 PM


For an offer around 70, I expedited up around 30 spots, to 40-70ish. Others may have different approaches.

Posted by: expedite | Feb 23, 2021 4:33:55 PM

The 1-day Yale acceptance seems very problematic in terms appearances. If their goal was to seems less biased (by accepting a piece from a non-white offer) they ended up shooting themselves in the foot, as now they seem REALLY biased (accepting papers within 24 hours, either with no peer review or with a pre-submission recommendation of their own professors).

Posted by: Anon | Feb 23, 2021 4:32:21 PM

A tweet from Duke Law Journal from back in January:

"To account for the extraordinary challenges presented by the pandemic—particularly for scholars with childcare and other family responsibilities—DLJ will be reviewing article submissions from Feb. 1–March 15 on a rolling basis & conducting a second round of selection in August."

I guess that was a lie?

Posted by: Lawprof | Feb 23, 2021 4:32:16 PM

Yale also publishes a lot of its professors. I was asked to provide a peer review a few years ago for a piece I knew to be written by one of their profs (who I'll admit is someone I greatly respect). The draft wasn't even completed with empty footnotes (for major propositions upon which the thesis was based). I thought it was bad and said so (professionally) in my review. They accepted the piece.

Posted by: AnonProf | Feb 23, 2021 3:35:15 PM

Post a comment