Article Length

Kim Krawiec links to an Orin Kerr tweet recalling the 2005 law review joint statement about article length, which produced a "policy" of articles in the 20-25k range, above 25k with good reason, and never over 35k except in extraordinary cases. Kim says the "plan, shall we say, did not work." The interesting question is why not: Did profs not get or not want to take the hint? Were journals not serious about wanting shorter pieces?

Two anecdotes: 1) Mark Lemley's The Imperial Supreme Court  found a home in HLR. But Lemley reported that it took him awhile because a few journals rejected it as not long enough. 2) A colleague submitted a paper of around 10k. A journal gave him a conditional acceptance--only if he added another 3-5k.