Top Law Schools

Hi all,

I just had the wonderful experience of having a confirmed author pull her article... after submissions season. Second author I've had awful terrible no good problems with this semester.

I think we should centralize, and share among ourselves, an author shitlist. Because let's face it, this is a buyer's market for submissions. Other than articles by judges and extremely big-name authors, there are dozens and dozens of high-quality articles that are fairly fungible out there. And this pre-tenure author should've been damn grateful that we were publishing her in a T14-name journal. They need us more than we need them.

Who's in? Author shitlist?

sap wrote:Hi all,

I just had the wonderful experience of having a confirmed author pull her article... after submissions season. Second author I've had awful terrible no good problems with this semester.

I think we should centralize, and share among ourselves, an author shitlist. Because let's face it, this is a buyer's market for submissions. Other than articles by judges and extremely big-name authors, there are dozens and dozens of high-quality articles that are fairly fungible out there. And this pre-tenure author should've been damn grateful that we were publishing her in a T14-name journal. They need us more than we need them.

Who's in? Author shitlist?

Why did the author pull her article? Was this a T-14 law review?

She probably got an offer from (what she considered) a better journal.

A. Nony Mouse wrote:She probably got an offer from (what she considered) a better journal.

In the editing phase, post-author-contract. It's fine to pick better journals over less good journals. It's fine to back out of a contract fairly quickly.

It's not fine to back out several months later. If someone did this shit outside of academia, they wouldn't get hired by another law firm. Doing it inside academia should be equally culpable.

ph14 wrote:Why did the author pull her article? Was this a T-14 law review?

I'm not going to give out a whole lot of details on a public forum.

Oh, yeah, not saying that it's justified to do that. Just that that was probably the reason. It's still a crappy thing to do.

We nearly had to reject an article well into the editing stage because it became clear the footnotes - like, 90% of them - were entirely fictional, which was equally fun in a different kind of way.

Oh, and then there was the guy who verbally accepted an offer of publication from us, then literally never contacted us again, never answered his e-mail, never answered his phone. We even called his school and someone in the admin told us they'd seen him going to class that day.

A. Nony Mouse wrote:Oh, and then there was the guy who verbally accepted an offer of publication from us, then literally never contacted us again, never answered his e-mail, never answered his phone. We even called his school and someone in the admin told us they'd seen him going to class that day.

This is a guy I wouldn't like to have to deal with, ever. Shitlist!

sap wrote:

ph14 wrote:Why did the author pull her article? Was this a T-14 law review?

I'm not going to give out a whole lot of details on a public forum.

A shitlist isn't much good without actually listing anyone....

EDIT: And that's not to say I'm for this idea, just that I think it's odd to say, "We need a list of people!" but not actually list the person who is the impetus for the tirade.

sap wrote:They need us more than we need them.

Lol. No they don't.

Desert Fox wrote:

sap wrote:They need us more than we need them.

Lol. No they don't.

I kind of agree with sap. Once you're a journal board member, what do you give a shit about professors? If you have a job lined up then that shit isn't relevant. If you don't have a job lined up it's not like the profs can help you all that much.

Nobody cares if you take your Journal of Unicorn Law and Unicornology and crash that fucker into the ground, it's not gonna matter to your career. If that prof struggles to get published then they are going to have a hard time making tenure.

bk1 wrote:

Desert Fox wrote:

sap wrote:They need us more than we need them.

Lol. No they don't.

I kind of agree with sap. Once you're a journal board member, what do you give a shit about professors? If you have a job lined up then that shit isn't relevant. If you don't have a job lined up it's not like the profs can help you all that much.

Nobody cares if you take your Journal of Unicorn Law and Unicornology and crash that fucker into the ground, it's not gonna matter to your career. If that prof struggles to get published then they are going to have a hard time making tenure.

Journals are entirely replaceable. They are basically free vanity publishers as it is.

Desert Fox wrote:Journals are entirely replaceable. They are basically free vanity publishers as it is.

They are replaceable, but journal board members have almost nothing to gain or lose whereas profs stand to possibly lose something.

bk1 wrote:

Desert Fox wrote:Journals are entirely replaceable. They are basically free vanity publishers as it is.

They are replaceable, but journal board members have almost nothing to gain or lose whereas profs stand to possibly lose something.

If they cared even a little, they wouldn't have ditched this guys journal without a second thought. There are a billion journals.

.

Jsa725 wrote:

Desert Fox wrote: If they cared even a little, they wouldn't have ditched this guys journal without a second thought. There are a billion journals.

i agree. but also, some journals are prefstigious and some are less so. many in academia are self-aggrandizing ego maniacs who want to be published in prefstigious law journals, right?

That doesn't really seem fair. Trying to publish in high-ranking and prestigious law reviews is the name of the game for academia, especially for those that are starting out. I don't think that makes them "self-aggrandizing ego maniacs."

.

Jsa725 wrote:

ph14 wrote:

Jsa725 wrote:

Desert Fox wrote: If they cared even a little, they wouldn't have ditched this guys journal without a second thought. There are a billion journals.

i agree. but also, some journals are prefstigious and some are less so. many in academia are self-aggrandizing ego maniacs who want to be published in prefstigious law journals, right?

That doesn't really seem fair. Trying to publish in high-ranking and prestigious law reviews is the name of the game for academia, especially for those that are starting out. I don't think that makes them "self-aggrandizing ego maniacs."

maybe my language was a little strong BUT...

why not? if you were a week from publication and a professor called you to pull his or her article for a "better" journal, would you be pissed? all that time editing for nothing. is that not a demonstration of extreme douchebaggery and a lack of humility and gratitude? is it not an ego run rampant? - i think i am better than your journal. thanks for editing it for me, peace out. -

My comment had nothing to do with the situation that OP was in. I think that breaking a publication contract, especially one where the journal has already starting the editing process, is different than merely seeking to "be published in [prestigious] law journals." You, on the other hand, attacked "many in academia," not just the author in OP's situation.

.

I'm pretty much certain I know who the first author is, but now I'm curious about the next one. I guess if I'm right I'll find out soon enough!

Desert Fox wrote:

sap wrote:They need us more than we need them.

Lol. No they don't.

Dude, tenure is like 90% dependent on publishing enough in good enough journals. If pre-tenure professors know that if they pull one shitty stunt, they don't get published anywhere decent afterwards, they wouldn't be such shitheads. They don't have jobs for life yet, and I guarantee you that there are about 5x as many decent articles floating about as there are slots on prestigious law reviews. Submissions is more about how to figure out which needles are sharpest than about finding needles in haystacks.

I'm just going to come out and say it: LOL at everyone being angry they aren't Yale Law Journal and can't control the market.

-Former Non-YLJ law review editor

Citizen Genet wrote:I'm just going to come out and say it: LOL at everyone being angry they aren't Yale Law Journal and can't control the market.

-Former Non-YLJ Law Review Editor

LOL @ thinking YLJ is the best, its not even top 3.

Jchance wrote:

Citizen Genet wrote:I'm just going to come out and say it: LOL at everyone being angry they aren't Yale Law Journal and can't control the market.

-Former Non-YLJ Law Review Editor

LOL @ thinking YLJ is the best, its not even top 3.

I like where your head is at.

Jchance wrote:

Citizen Genet wrote:I'm just going to come out and say it: LOL at everyone being angry they aren't Yale Law Journal and can't control the market.

-Former Non-YLJ Law Review Editor

LOL @ thinking YLJ is the best, its not even top 3.

Meh, I'll call bull. You're probably referencing the W&L combined score rankings or impact factor rankings. While there's a bunch of methodological problems with both of those, I won't go into the problems because those rankings are irrelevant. Law Review Editors look at those rankings; profs don't. If you ask a professor, "Would you rather publish in YLJ or CLR?" the answer is almost always going to be YLJ, CLR's better combined score ranking notwithstanding.

Now, when we're talking HLR v. YLJ v. SLJ - you're right, there might be some push and pull between those three. But everyone past that - they're marching to the Top 3's drumbeat.

Citizen Genet wrote:

Jchance wrote:

Citizen Genet wrote:I'm just going to come out and say it: LOL at everyone being angry they aren't Yale Law Journal and can't control the market.

-Former Non-YLJ Law Review Editor

LOL @ thinking YLJ is the best, its not even top 3.

Meh, I'll call bull. You're probably referencing the W&L combined score rankings or impact factor rankings. While there's a bunch of methodological problems with both of those, I won't go into the problems because those rankings are irrelevant. Law Review Editors look at those rankings; profs don't. If you ask a professor, "Would you rather publish in YLJ or CLR?" the answer is almost always going to be YLJ, CLR's better combined score ranking notwithstanding.

Now, when we're talking HLR v. YLJ v. SLJ - you're right, there might be some push and pull between those three. But everyone past that - they're marching to the Top 3's drumbeat.

I mean YLJ isn't even really a law review, so it shouldn't really count in this thread. At least Stanford maintains a proper law review.

Yale Law Revue is by far the best IMO, ya'll are haters