The Law Review Article Selection Process: Results from a National Study
![handle is hein.journals/albany71 and id is 569 raw text is: THE LAW REVIEW ARTICLE SELECTION PROCESS:
RESULTS FROM A NATIONAL STUDY
Jason P. Nance* & Dylan J. Steinberg**
I. INTRODUCTION
In the mid-1990s, the topic of the student-edited law review was
very much on the minds of legal scholars and law review editors. In
1994, the University of Chicago Law Review published a series of
essays addressing the role of students in the law review publication
process.1 The following year, the Stanford Law Review conducted a
law review conference entitled Law Review Conference.2
Although there were many calls for further research into the
* J.D., University of Pennsylvania Law School, 2006. Articles Editor, Volume 154,
University of Pennsylvania Law Review. Law Clerk to the Honorable Kent A. Jordan, U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The order in which the authors' names are listed is
not intended to suggest a primary and secondary author. We consider each author's
contribution to have been equally valuable. Because one name had to come first, we have
chosen to list them alphabetically.
** J.D., University of Pennsylvania Law School, 2006. Articles Editor, Volume 154,
University of Pennsylvania Law Review. Law Clerk to the Honorable Stewart Dalzell, U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. We would like to thank our
colleagues on the University of Pennsylvania Law Review, particularly Michael Areinoff,
Tabea Hsi, Rachael Kuilema Klein, and Allison Sheedy. We are grateful to everyone who
provided feedback on the early drafts of our survey, including Catherine Struve, Kristin
Madison, Kermit Roosevelt, R. Polk Wagner, Kalpana Kotagal, Devanshu Patel, Ruth
Sternglantz, and Indraneel Sur. Thanks also to Bill Henderson and all the participants in the
forum on this Article conducted at the Empirical Legal Studies Blog, http://www.elsblog.org,
on August 14 and 15, 2007. Finally, and most importantly, we want to thank our colleagues
at other journals who took the time to respond. Without their tremendous response, far
beyond what we had any right to expect, we would have been unable to complete the kind of
analysis that we present here.
1 See Wendy J. Gordon, Counter-Manifesto: Student-Edited Reviews and the Intellectual
Properties of Scholarship, 61 U. CHI. L. REV. 541 (1994); James Lindgren, An Author's
Manifesto, 61 U. CHI. L. REV. 527 (1994) [hereinafter Lindgren, Author's Manifesto]; The
Articles Editors of the University of Chicago Law Review, A Response, 61 U. CHI. L. REV. 553
(1994).
2 The papers from this conference were published in the Law Review's Summer 1995 issue.
Law Review Conference, 47 STAN. L. REV. 1117 (1995).](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.journals/albany71&div=22&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
What Is HeinOnline?
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
The Law Review Article Selection Process: Results from a National Study
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most