A few days ago, Paul Clement, one of the United States' most prominent Supreme Court advocates, left his firm. He'd just prevailed in a significant gun rights case, and his firm had just announced it would no longer represent clients in such cases. Anyone who knows Clement and his practice knew it was only a matter of days. Clement had left another large law firm, King & Spalding, in 2011 when the firm withdrew from defending the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act (a law that defined marriage as between partners of opposite sexes). Here's why I would have done the same thing. It has nothing to do with guns, unpopular clients, or law firm politics. According to American Lawyer, Clement's law firm, Kirkland & Ellis, is the largest law firm in the world by revenue, and the third most profitable. Its equity partners each made $6,194,000 last year. Clement served in a Republican administration, and he often represents clients whose interests align with
This comment has been removed by the author.ReplyDelete
Many thanks for doing this! Excellent work.ReplyDelete
I've got one article out this cycle. I've submitted to about 60 journals. No offers yet, and a few rejections. This article has a politically unpopular theme, so not every journal will be interested in it.
More journals just opened up:ReplyDelete
Texas Law Review
Notre Dame Law Review
Villanova Law Review
Virginia Journal of International Law
Connecticut Law Review Online
What's up, prawfs? More journals open today. Check out Scholastica's twitter feed or sign up for an email (which is far superior to twitter as it doesn't require writing in sentence fragments). Here's today's list:ReplyDelete
Florida Law Review
Denver Law Review
Yale Journal on Regulation
Harvard Journal of Law and Technology
Columbia Law Review - Essays & Reviews
Washington and Lee Law Review
Michigan Law Review
North Carolina Law Review
Columbia Law Review - Articles
Berkeley Journal of Employment and Labor Law
Iowa Law Review
The Georgetown Law Journal
Duke Law Journal
I have an expedite deadline tomorrow. I've now submitted to the journals that opened today, but I'm hesitating to expedite, because (1) what's the point with such a short deadline and (2) I fear that doing so will result in quick rejection. I haven't decided whether I'll take or leave the offer on the table. Any advice?ReplyDelete
Thank you very much for starting this thread, by the way!ReplyDelete
Anonymous: the prawfs would tell you it depends on a number of factors, including the USN rank of the school that publishes the journal that gave you the offer, among many other factors. Hopefully some prawfs will log on and share their wisdom here.ReplyDelete
My practice -- and I'm independent so I have the luxury of doing what I want -- is that I've never left an offer on the table. If I submit to a journal, they offer, and I don't get another offer, I always accept the sole offer. And I've never asked for an extension of time from a journal, either. It all just seems very disrespectful to me. I like rules, and those are mine.
Thank you, Michael. It's a USN top 5 secondary, not in a field in which secondaries punch above their weight generally. I'm on the tenure track. Some colleagues say it will count as less than a full article for tenure purposes; others seem to disagree, but at minimum it's on the margin. I have time to resubmit once if necessary. I also dislike the thought of turning down an offer. I find the process distasteful.ReplyDelete
That's a tough one. Your colleagues will definitely have the best advice as to what's the best thing to do for your career / tenure requirements. Tough spot; I don't envy you.ReplyDelete
Thanks so much for setting this up and thanks to Michael Cicchini's blog for pointing me this way!ReplyDelete
Spread the word! Tweet it out, post the link in the comments to posts on Prawfs Blawg, etc. All the credit goes to Phil Lord, though, for setting this up. I wouldn't have known how. Check out his blog page and other pages while you're here.ReplyDelete
Here's my question. I submit almost exclusively through email, but there's a few schools who, even though they provide an email submission address, I never hear from (Missouri and Penn State come immediately to mind).ReplyDelete
I wonder if any other email submitters encountered this and if there's something that can be done, or if it's just the cost of submitting via email.
I now only submit over email when they don't state that they prefer Scholastica. I've received most of my offers from email submissions, including from flagships that prefer Scholastica. I submitted to Penn State early this morning over email, and they just acknowledged receipt.Delete
Phil, thanks for the response. I'll check my email when I get home. Maybe I sent it a bit early and they're just now getting rolling. Will update when I check my email.Delete
Try submitting another email from another account with "submissions QUESTION" in the subject line. Then ask if they're still using that email address for submissions. If you don't get an answer, you'll know they're likely not checking the account.ReplyDelete
Kudos to you for using email. I always say I am going to do that, but then I submit via Scholastica, and then I gripe about the crazy costs of submission. Will I ever learn? Yes. Next Spring. For sure. Probably.
Thanks for the response and the kudos! Sometimes, though, I still have to break down and submit a couple via Scholastica.ReplyDelete
So far: 82 submissions, 7 rejections. I'm afraid I might have problems placing this article. The article presents my study of a sample of real life cases, and its findings contradict the often-repeated and never-questioned "narrative," as the kids say, that the police are "systemically racist." Not sure if a defense of the police -- even if very mild and narrow, as this one is -- will be permitted. But I had to write it. After nearly two decades of bashing the police (metaphorically) about the head and neck in the courtroom and in print, I figured even they deserve a defense sometimes.ReplyDelete
I understand your position. I, too, wrote an article that was on the wrong side of the mainstream academy narrative. It took a few cycles to get it accepted. I've got another one out this cycle. The findings aren't out of step with current orthodoxy, but the work of some rather big names is implicated. Interestingly, I initially submitted this to peer-reviewed places, where it received strong praise, but they told me it was suited for general law reviews rather than specialized peer-reviewed journals.Delete
Last cycle was its first time on the general law review market. Didn't fare too well. So I feel your pain!
Thanks! I was thinking about how I could "soften the blow" of the findings for a future submission cycle, but today I got notice from a journal that the article has moved on to its next stage of review. So there's hope.Delete
Calling YIKAM and Axel Foley and the dozens of "anons" out there. Where are y'all? This site is as easy to use as the old prawf's blawg.ReplyDelete
Do you update journals to which you expedited that your paper is still available if you end up leaving the offer on the table?ReplyDelete
I don't. I find they only use expedite notices as a signal to review a piece and mostly assume the deadline is meaningless because authors usually get other offers.Delete
Hey! The angsting thread is back? The cycle has started off strong in some ways for me. No offers yet, but one editor had some very kind words to say. I think I'm at the board review stage for one journal (the email was a little unclear).ReplyDelete
Hello YIKAM! Glad you joined the party. Share the news of the this new thread!ReplyDelete
Will do. GreatDisappointment posted a comment on one of the few open threads on Prawfsblawg. I'm surprised they let it stay up, given the relationship there.Delete
I'll bet their website traffic is way down over at Prawfs -- you know, without the angsting-thread visitors. There's probably a list of law prof blogs ranked by number of hits, so I'm sure some prof somewhere is angsting about the slide in the rankings.Delete
Happy to see people starting to find this thread. It's a shame Prawfs has gone into full punitive lock down. I'm not sure exactly what happened, but I'm afraid I contributed in some way. There were a few sharp confrontations between me and a couple of the prawfs. I'll do better here.ReplyDelete
In the meantime, a special thanks to Phil Lord for creating this thread and happy angsting!
So far, over 100 submissions and only a handful of rejections or so. I tried submitting an earlier version of the paper back in the Spring cycle (a.k.a. "The vicious cycle") with little success. I've published in very good journals in the past, but currently don't have a U.S. affiliation and my piece is interdisciplinary, which might be a disadvantage(?). The paper received very positive feedback from my peers; I hope that the student editors will feel the same and that the silence means that I'm under active consideration.ReplyDelete
JPG, don't forget about So. Cal. Interdisciplinary L.J. for your interdisciplinary article. (Not sure of its exact name.)ReplyDelete
I submitted as widely as possible in late July/Aug 1 and I have only received 2 rejections (Washington and Michigan, which I see on the spreadsheet have been rejecting others in similar time frame, roughly 5 days). This seems like a very slow and quiet cycle to me, but this article is different from my usual. I'm convincing myself that the article is worth nothing. Are others also experiencing more quiet than usual? Also, what does it mean when you submit to an open journal on Scholastica on Aug 1 and then on Aug 5, they close? Is that submission wasted or are they pausing submissions?ReplyDelete
If I remember correctly, last cycle was an unusually quick cycle. It started early and finished, really, before mid-September. This cycle seems to be more normal and should pick up towards the third and fourth week of August.Delete
I saw Missouri isn't opening until Oct. this year.
Unfortunately, it's likely a wasted submission. Scholastica thanks you for your donation.
US News or Washington & Lee ranking when expediting? Or just expedite widely in fall?ReplyDelete
1. Short answer: ask your colleagues how it's done at your school.
2. Slightly longer answer: (a) use the USN overall score with some modification for USN peer rankings when the peer rankings vary greatly from the USN overall score; (b) Use Wash & Lee only as a tie-breaker or when evaluating specialty journals.
Whether to expedite widely seems to be a separate question entirely. I always expedite to the top; some people do waves. But there's an obvious risk in doing it in waves. Can you imagine what it is?
One more thought. Some people us a 10-year rolling average of USN scores, but that makes no sense to me. A rolling average tells you more about where a school's ranking has been, rather than where it is. If you want stability, us the USN peer rankings. And of course, my response illustrates the absurdity of the rankings. USN and USN peer rankings rate schools, not journals, yet these rankings are almost universally preferred to Wash & Lee rankings which do rank journals. Pure silliness. That's why I use USN as a general guide, and then go by name recognition which arguably hinges more on the school's football team than anything else. Once again, purse silliness. But few people actually READ law reviews (or any academic journals); if they did, they would judge individual articles rather than school or journal ranks.Delete
Anonymous, I find this cycle to be very slow as well. However, I'm also in the same boat in that my article is unusual compared with my prior submissions. My current article might even be upsetting to some student editors. So I'm not sure if it's the cycle or just my article. As for your submission where the journal closed shortly thereafter, I had one or two of those this cycle as well. I'm afraid thegreatdissapointment is probably right -- a wasted submission.ReplyDelete
Four scholastica gripes:
(1) They need to get rid of that absurd graph that shows number of submissions relative to offers received. It's a useless statistic. Once I get an offer I immediately withdraw from comparable and "lower ranked" journals so they don't waste time making an offer I am not going to accept. Why would anyone want to measure offers against submissions? If anything, the graph hurts scholastica; it reminds us of all the money we're wasting just to get a single offer.
(2) They need to stop using those goofy pictures in their "social posts." The one looks like a bunch of editors sitting around laughing at a submission. Just stupid. See here: https://twitter.com/scholasticaLR/status/1423384572813877249
(3) Cost of submissions, combined with portals staying open when the journal isn't even reviewing. I know it's against scholastica's interest to correct this problem, but it would be a real show of good faith and would go a long way toward justifying that cost. Plus, c'mon journal editors, close down submissions when you're not reviewing.
(4) The goofy posts attempting to demonstrate scholastica's "value added" or whatever. We all know to identify the journals we'd like to publish in, how to click on the journal covers, etc. Just stop.
Michael, I second your frustration of scholastica's useless statistics. The only interesting statistic in terms of "when do authors submit?" is the percentage of acceptances as a function of when one submitted.ReplyDelete
I don't care when other people submit, I just want to make sure I time my submission to maximize my chances of acceptance.
p.s. many thanks for the USC ILJ suggestion!
Things are going super slow it seems. I've had a few conversations with editors, but nothing substantive, really.ReplyDelete
Is it going this slowly for everyone else?
Any advice on reviews that would be interested in a very emotive essay on working with refugees? It's neither academic nor scholarship--the article tells a story, and my purpose is to tell a different story about refugees than what we often hear. Are there flagships or specialties with a reputation for publishing anything like this?ReplyDelete
YIKAM same here, definitely very slowly. I got very few rejections and some emails confirming receipt and promising to get back within "the next few weeks"ReplyDelete
Still quiet! I have one offer but the clock is ticking and I'm not even hearing rejections. Should we assume journals not listed on spreadsheet aren't actively reading yet?ReplyDelete
Why is it so quiet? This feels eerie.ReplyDelete
This is my first Fall cycle. Is this just what it's like?
Anonymous, this isn't how it always is. I've been through several Fall cycles and never has it been so quiet like this one...ReplyDelete
my guess is that everyone is just reviewing later than usual. Two journals have communicated to me that they only start reviewing in mid-August, so if that is true for all, I guess things will pick up next week
Not sure if everyone is aware, but there is a similar law review angsting thread here https://www.reddit.com/r/LawProfs/comments/oyje1n/law_review_submissions_summerfall_2021/ with an attached spreadsheet that has 145 entries. I just learned about this one!ReplyDelete
I have been met with the same flagship silence but the specialties are hopping! For the first time ever, I received an offer within hours of submission and have since received five additional offers. I get the sense they are quickly trying to fill last spots in volumes before the flagships get going.
Has anyone been unable to reach an editor after receiving an offer from that journal? I have a follow up question but the Scholastica discussion feature has not produced a response. Other thoughts on how to reach the editor who contacted me about the offer?ReplyDelete
Thanks for linking to the reddit thread and other spreadsheet!ReplyDelete
Is anyone still here? What is the take on an article going to executive board review? Does this lean more toward rubber stamp or more toward equal chance either outcome? Does it vary among journals? How much should I try to temper excitement as I await results?ReplyDelete
It has been a bit quiet around here. I don't know where everyone went.Delete
Anyway, to answer your question, it's still more likely to be rejected than not, but board review is always a huge positive sign for your article. As an example, last cycle I had an article that had immense excitement from both the EIC and the Managing Editor.
It went to board review; it got rejected.
So, you should be excited about your article, but know that board review isn't a rubber stamp, and if I had to put odds, I'd say you should think of board review as 60-40 it'll be rejected.
I think everyone went to Reddit, r/lawprofs.Delete
Does anyone know the deal with Duke and expedites? On Scholastica, it says they're not accepting expedite requests. Is that b/c their window of accepting submissions from August 1-7 and promising to read everything before making a decision at the end of the month? Has anyone tried to expedite with them?ReplyDelete
Duke is not doing expedites because they are trying to stick with the read everything plan . . . I was told they won't be in a position to make offers before August 22 at the earliest.Delete
Very interesting. Odd approach, with some pros and cons.Delete
Is there any news from Notre Dame?ReplyDelete
I think Reddit spreadsheet has won the game, but this comment thread seems more active. BTW- Is anyone else still alive at Vanderbilt and refreshing an unhealthy amount of times on Scholastica because you know the rejection, when it comes, will be stealthy? They have had my piece for 23 days. I'm in agony.ReplyDelete
Same. And California, I somehow survived that wave too but why?Delete
Ah, lucky. I got the California axe. Have survived at Washington, Iowa, and Northwestern despite a few rounds, though.Delete
I'm curious about Iowa. I submitted on the 1st and haven't heard anything from them. And it looks like they've made a few rounds of cuts. It makes me hopeful, but I also haven't heard of a board review so maybe they just haven't gotten to mine. Who knows, but this is a stressful season and I'm reaching for any encouragement.Delete
Based on my past experience with Iowa, you may not receive notice of a board read -- I've received an offer out of the blue from them before. So, I share your hope and offer some encouragement!Delete
How are people handling the various journals which request anon versions on Scholastica (Stanford, NYU, etc.)? Creating anon and non-anon manuscript accounts? Submitting a version of everything? Emailing journals separately? It's getting hard to keep track of who wants what.ReplyDelete
On anonymous submissions, I always create one anonymous version of my paper (with redacted citations to my own work, too), and one regular version. Then, I make the list of the anonymous journals (mostly HYS, but also NYU, Michigan, UCIrvine, and a few others now). And I submit to those separately from whatever batch I submit the regular version.Delete
I just submitted a single anonymized paper to everyone. Those that wanted cover letters and CVs got them. Perhaps I'll get penalized because I lack a star footnote thanking the hordes but whatever.Delete
Anyone else on the market and having real doubts that their job talk is worth anything??? I've got offers from a T100 flagship, a T5 specialty, board reads at 2 T50 schools, and a whole lot of silence.ReplyDelete
Here in solidarity. On the market also, but without offers so far. Just a whole lot of silence. Fingers crossed for both of us.Delete
The Fall is always tough, this year even more so because many profs didn't finish or place their articles in the Winter. That being said, unless you're a fellow at a top school (with the expectation that you get more and better feedback), a T100 placement is great. I was on the market last year (got a few offers), and I can assure you that a T100 placement can get 75% of schools to take a serious look at your resume.Delete
The reddit site is goofy -- all that voting up and down, and it's very cluttered. Phil's page (this one) is much clearer. Thanks again, Phil!ReplyDelete
I don't submit to places that require an anonymous submission, as it seems to defeat the very purpose of Scholastica. The primary benefit of Scholastica is the one-click simplicity. (I also never double space my article, despite some journals' requests to do so.) But if I were inclined to submit to those anon schools, I think the previous poster's comment is the way to go: simply set up a second submission.
As far as the "star footnote," I'm laughing out loud over here! Whenever I see those, I think of how insecure the academic writer must be to seek so much feedback on "the piece," how many thousands of dollars have been spent on hotel and travel costs to get to the "workshops," and how half of the people named in the footnote probably have no idea who the author is! It's too much.
Good luck everyone. So far, I have one offer and I'm in the expedite game -- a place I didn't expect to be given today's political climate and the politically unpopular undercurrent of my article. I'll happily accept my sole offer absent other offers. We'll see what shakes out as time progresses.
To me the star footnote is more out of politeness. If I presented at a conference and someone took the effort to email me with detailed comments, I put them in the footnote. I'm pretenure, though, and have every incentive not to rattle the cage.Delete
Here's an article with a name-dropping footnote to beat all name-dropping footnotes. I didn't have to look too far. It's the latest article on HLR. About fifteen conferences, several dozen named individuals, plus another dozen-plus individuals that gave "reference support"-- whatever that is--and did the research. To me, that takes real nerve. I would not feel comfortable getting that much help with one of my articles, but that's just me. Also, as an accountant, it makes me wonder about the true cost of this "piece." More than $100,000 on variable costs alone, I'd bet -- in other words, not including the prof's salary, benefits, and other fixed costs which are incurred regardless. This is Exhibit A for why legal education costs so much. I could produce better, practice-ready lawyers in six months using a notepad, pen, and internet access. And they'd be better versed in legal theory, too. Unreal.Delete
Odd comment. Seeking feedback from others isn't a sign of insecurity; it's a sign of humility. Other smart people who have thought about my area of law know stuff I don't, and will have ideas I haven't thought of. That makes the work better. That's how the intellectual endeavor should work.Delete
Seeking help from one or two people is one thing. Getting help from 56 people, well, that's another story entirely. And that's not counting the nearly 20 research and reference assistants.Delete
It's easy to say that's how it should work when you don't have to bear the cost of the system.
Agree with Michael on this. Footnotes with a laughably long list of people who "advised" on the manuscript isn't about thanking people. Usually, it's about trying to impress a law review editor to go ahead and pass it on, saying "The entire faculty at Yale liked it, so who are you to say different?"Delete
As for me, my cycle has been demoralizing so far. I don't understand why law review editors just ignore real-world consequent articles. And it's not the research. This article is the most muscular article I've ever written, research-wise. There are rock solid sources backing up other rock-solid sources.
But just days of silence go by.
I don't think it's any particular kind of article that gets ignored (real-world consequent or not). Almost all articles get ignored in the fall cycle.Delete
I am just learning about NYU's (new, I think?) preference for anonymous submissions. I already submitted non-anonymously. Worth it to resubmit, or waste of time at this point?ReplyDelete
Anonymous, I understand your claim. Law review editors frequently want "novel," which is often quite different than "useful." Journals sometimes crave that new idea, like "Preglimony," rather than something that could be of immediate help to lawyers. My most popular article, though, has probably never been cited, but I've received emails from other attorneys across the country saying that they used it to successfully defend their clients.ReplyDelete
Hi all, I'm looking for some expedite advice. I got an offer from a specialty journal of a school ranked in the 140-120 range on the US news website, but the journal itself is unranked by Washington & Lee. Given the timeline of this cycle, how far up would you expedite? (I'm aware that some people expedite directly all the way up, but that hasn't really worked for me thus far).ReplyDelete
And, would you start by expediting only to other specialties, or try your luck with flagships (and if so, how far up? would you use the school's ranking to decide on this?).
If it were me, I'd expedite up to around USN 80-100 flagship and all of the relevant specialties. I wouldn't go all the way up, unless you're for sure going to take the offer if nothing else comes through -- if that's the case, then I'd go higher. In this difficult fall, it's possible that any offer may get some amount of attention.Delete
JPG, anonymous's USN 80 recommendation sounds good to me. If you won't go all the way up, then just draw an arbitrary line in the sand. As far as specialties, there used to be an old rule of thumb that you should add 20 spots to the USN rank of the school. Over time, I think the consensus has moved more toward adding 40 or even 50 spots, except for a handful of specialties that are viewed as more prestigious, e.g., Harv. CR-CL, American Crim. L Rev, etc. But Anon is also right that, if you intend to take the offer absent a better one (which is how I operate), then you should shoot for the top.Delete
For me, I expedited to the top, and have had very few rejections and no new offers. I set my expedite deadline for very late Sunday evening, so we'll see what breaks. This fall I've received the lowest percentage of responses than any other submission cycle, I think. I view a non-response as a rejection, without question. But it's odd that there's so little formal activity this cycle.
Just as an update: I followed the advice, unfortunately it yielded almost no response at all. I am used to some journals ignoring expedites, but this was unusual even for me - I think the whole thing led to maybe 3 rejections (I expedited to more than 100 journals), and 1-2 journals promising to get back to me without actually doing so.Delete
I'm not sure what is going on, but if this is again a "too many papers not enough slots" type of problem, I fear that the whole process might implode next cycle.
I, for one, will probably skip the next cycle altogether and rewrite the piece for a peer-reviewed journal - the process no longer holds the advantages it used to.
I have an offer from a specialty and a T10 flagship asked for 2 extra days to review. The specialty has not returned my request for extension - just complete silence. WWYD?ReplyDelete
I would grant the T10 flagship its two days and risk it.Delete
I thought it was winding down but then heard from two journals who are just starting review. Anyone else hearing this? Anyone think this will be an M-curve season?ReplyDelete
UCLA and Iowa are now closed on Scholastica. Neither has rejected me. What's up with that? Iowa, at least, was rejecting non-expedites this cycle.ReplyDelete
Good luck everyone, I'm out. I accepted my offer. Before accepting, I sent out 55 expedite requests and I got 3 rejections and 52 no responses. Very strange. I don't ever remember this low of a response rate. I treat a non-response as a rejection, and I know editors are swamped. But I suspect that a lot of journals were open on Scholastica but were not reviewing. There's no way to know, of course, but I don't like that; it spells wasted money. Anyway, carryon on and good luck! Phil's angsting thread put some enjoyment back into the publishing process for me this fall.ReplyDelete
Thanks for sharing the page, Michael! If that helps anyone, I submitted to 125 journals and got 7 offers and about 26 rejections.Delete
Congrats Michael. I'm going to board review at the journal I'm most hoping to publish this article with, so fingers crossed.Delete
Phil, thanks for doing this spreadsheet. I hope you'll do it in the Spring again. The reddit one, like Michael said, is pretty hectic and confusing. I think this one will catch on as a more orderly, user-friendly spreadsheet.
Israeli lawyer Moshe StruganoReplyDelete
I am a ECS who is very new to this system. I received an offer from a specialized law journal that is not ranked on Wash&Lee (it's there but it says NR). I expedited but no offer is coming in and I don't know what to do.
The university where the journal is based ranks 16th on USnews this year so my question is: is the journal ranking all that matters or the university's ranking might also be relevant?
What would you do/have done in the past?
Thanks for the leads!
Apparently a team has built a new platform that's agile and will be attuned to editors' and authors' concerns and suggestions. https://scholar.claudius.ai/ If you're interested in being a part of this sea change in legal academic publishing, reach out to them for a demo.ReplyDelete