-
8/6/2019 PDF Vol 10 No 07 SI 1127-1148 Russi Longobardi
1/22
SPECIALISSUE:TRANSNATIONALIZINGLEGALEDUCATION
ATinyHeartBeating:
StudentEditedLegalPeriodicalsinGoodOlEurope
ByLuigiRussiandFedericoLongobardi*
A.Introduction
FromtheperspectiveofanonAmericanjurist,studenteditedlawreviewsseemtobeone
of the most distinctive features of the United States legal education system.1 The
development
of
law
reviews
in
the
United
States
has
been
particularly
sustained
in
more
recentyears,witha literalproliferationoflaw(schoolsandlaw)reviews,bothofgeneral
focusandsubjectspecific.Withstudenteditedlawjournalsmakingupthelargestshareof
thelegalperiodicalmarket,2publicationinhighlyrankedstudenteditedlawreviewshas
cometoacquiregreatsignificancealsoinrelationtothelawfacultyselectionandtenure
grantingmechanism.3
The preponderance of studentedited law reviews has, however, been accompanied by
mounting criticism. Part of this criticism, and the one most relevant for this articles
purpose, is that the inevitable inexperience4ofstudenteditorsvisvis theirdesignated
* Federico Longobardi, Email: [email protected], authored Section B.I, and offered preciousassistanceandadvice in thedraftingof the remainingpartsofthearticle,whichwereauthoredbyLuigiRussi,
Email: [email protected] indebted toProfessorAttilioGuarneriofBocconiLawSchoolforhishelpfuladvice.
1SeeReinhardZimmermann,LawReviews:AForayThroughaStrangeWorld,47EMORYLAWJOURNAL(EMORYL.J)
659, 660 (1998) ([T]hey [i.e. law reviews] are one of the most remarkable institutions of American legalculture.).TheonlyotherplacedisplayingatraditionofstudenteditedlawreviewsisAustralia,where,however,onehadtowaituntilthemidfiftiesforthefirstattemptbytheUniversityofTasmania.Forfurtherbackgroundonthehistoryoflawreviews,seeMichaelL.Closen&RobertJ.Dzielak,TheHistoryandInfluenceoftheLawReviewInstitution,30AKRONLAWREVIEW(AKRONL.R.)15,4143(1996).
2 See posting by Matt Bodie on PrawfsBlawg, http://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/prawfsblawg/2006/01/project_on_peer.html(2January 2006).
3JamesGordley,MereBrilliance:TheRecruitmentofLawProfessorsintheUnitedStates,40AMERICANJOURNALOF
COMPARATIVELAW(AM.J.COMP.L.)367,377(1993)([I]nmakingatenuredecision,thefaculty'sentirecapacityforsustainedcriticalevaluationdescendsonthecandidate'swrittenworklikeasortoflaserdirectedlandslide.).See
also,DuncanKennedy,ACulturalPluralistCaseforAffirmativeActioninLegalAcademia,1990DUKELAWJOURNAL(DUKEL.J.)705,752(1990)(Manylawfacultiesadoptinpractice(thoughnotintheory)arulethatifyoupublishsomenumberofarticlesonclearlylegaltopicsinwellregardedlawreviews,youwillgettenure.Period.).
4SeeRichardA.Posner,LawReviews,46WASHBURNLAWJOURNAL(WASBURNL.J.)155,155(2006).
-
8/6/2019 PDF Vol 10 No 07 SI 1127-1148 Russi Longobardi
2/22
1128 Ge rman Law J ou rna l [Vol.10No.07audience of legal academics and practitioners has translated in the adoption of
questionablepracticesinthearticleselectionprocess.Forinstance,theallegeduseofan
authorspreviouspublishinghistoryorhis/her lawschoolaffiliationasproxies forarticle
quality.5 The same goes for theweight given to the lengthof the contribution and the
wealthoffootnotesincludedinapaper.Theuseofsimilarproxies,however,leavesroom
forcriticismthateditorsfailtoengagewiththesubstantiveissueswhichsubmittedarticles
touchupon,makingtheselectionprocessineffectiveandalittleopaque.
Inthisrespect,Europeanlegalscholarshiphas longbeenaratheramusedyetdistant
spectator,beingdominatedby thepresenceofpeerreviewedjournals. In recentyears,
however,thingshavestartedtochange.SincethebirthoftheIrishStudentLawReviewin
1991,studenteditedlawjournalshavestartedtogrowinEngland,Ireland,Germany,the
Netherlandsand,mostrecently,inItaly.6
Inviewoftheforegoing,thepurposeofthisArticleistwofold.Firstofall,itattemptstotry
andfleshoutwhatare theeducationaladvantagesof studentedited law reviews.For
thispurpose,particularattention isdevoted to the importanceofanexperienceas law
revieweditorsforaparticularsegmentoflegalprofessionals,namelyacademics.Secondly,
asolutionisproposedtotryandenhancetheeducationalvalueofaneditorialexperience
for students,while simultaneously translating it intoan added value for the restof the
legalcommunity,bydisclosingnewopportunities for the improvementof thequalityof
legalscholarship.
For thispurpose,PartB firstofalloutlines the roleof law reviews aspartof the legal
educationprocessandthefacultyselectionmechanismintheUnitedStates.Followingthis
outline, it is then consideredwhat repercussions the symmetricbirthof studentedited
publicationsinEuropemayyieldinthesameareasoflegaleducationandfacultyselection.PartCpresentsaviewonthepossiblenewroleofstudenteditedpublicationswithinlegal
scholarship,inresponsetorecentcriticismengenderedbythegrowthoflawreviewsinthe
UnitedStates.7
5 See LeahM.Christensen& JulieA.Oseid,Navigating the LawReviewArticleSelectionProcess:AnEmpirical
StudyofThoseWithAllthePowerStudentEditors,59SOUTHCAROLINALAWREVIEW(SOUTHCAROLINAL.REV.)175(2008), available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1002640 (last visited 15 April 2008);JasonP.Nance&DylanJ.Steinberg,TheLawReviewArticleSelectionProcess:ResultsFromaNationalStudy,71ALBANYLAWREVIEW(ALB.L.REV.)(forthcoming2008),availableathttp://ssrn.com/abstract=988847(lastvisited15April2008).
6Fora listoftheexistingEuropeanstudentedited legalpublications,useful forappraisingthesizeofthisnew
phenomenon,see,infra,Appendix.
7 See, e.g., Karen Dybis, 100 Best Law Reviews, THENATIONAL JURIST 22 (February 2008) (contending that thenumberof law reviewshasbecomesuchas toenablepublicationofworksofpoorerquality,to thepointthatpapers actually relevant to the legal debate could theoretically be found only in the best, e.g. top100, law
reviews).
-
8/6/2019 PDF Vol 10 No 07 SI 1127-1148 Russi Longobardi
3/22
1129StudentEditedLegalPeriodicalsinEurope2009]Inlightoftheconsiderationspresentedinthepaper,wethenconcludethatthegrowthof
studenteditedlawreviewsinEuropemayberegardedasawelcomenewopportunitythat
maybringinterestingchangesintheeducationoftomorrowsEuropeanlawteachersand
in thequalityof legal scholarship.Particularlyso, ifaproposedEuropeanway to legal
periodicalpublicationwasabletogathersupport,inordertoavoidsomeoftheproblems
currentlyexperiencedintheUnitedStates.AEuropeanwaythatwouldtakeadvantage
ofthecurrentpreponderance,inEurope,ofpeerreviewedjournalsasopposedtostudent
editedones.
Morespecifically,studenteditedlawreviewscouldbeseenasacomplementaryresource
topeerreviewedjournalsinEurope,ratherthanasubstitute,byofferingavenueoffirst
publication,possiblyintheformofstudenteditedworkingpaperseries.Itwouldinvolve
a first round of feedback, both formal and substantial. After this initial chiselwork,
published
papers
could
then
be
submitted
to
peer
reviewed
journals,
in
an
attempt
for
authors to obtain additional substantial feedback, for the further improvement of the
articleatissue.
B.LawReviewsandtheRipeningofLegalScholars
I.TheBirthandRoleofLawReviewsintheU.S.
LawreviewsweregraduallyintroducedintheUnitedStatesduringthenineteenthcentury,
asasourcemainlyaddressedtopractitionersofrecentcourtdecisions,localnewsand
editorial comments in a legal writing style that made them more easily accessible,
comparedtothetediousandencyclopaedictreatisesofBlackstone,KentandStory.8
Inthiscontext,thefirststudenteditedlawreviewsappearedtowardstheendofthesame
century.FollowingtheshortlivedexperiencesoftheAlbanyLawSchoolJournal(1875)and
theColumbiaJurist(1885),cametheHarvardLawReview(1887),whichrapidlydeveloped
influence in academic and professional circles.9 Yale (1891), Penn (1896), Columbia
(1901),Michigan(1902)andNorthwestern(1906)followedsuit.In1937,therewerefifty
law reviews;by themiddleof the1980s, therewereabout250.10
Nowadays, themost
comprehensivedatabaseofEnglishlanguagelegalperiodicals,11
maintainedbyJohnDoyle,
8Michael I.Swygert&JonW.Bruce,TheHistoricalOrigins,Founding,andEarlyDevelopmentofStudentEdited
LawReviews,36HASTINGSLAWJOURNAL(HASTINGSL.J.)739,741(1985).
9Id.,77879.
10See,supra,note1,662.
11Availableat http://lawlib.wlu.edu/LJ/index.aspx(SelectAllsubjectsandUSinthescrolldownmenus,tick
theStudenteditedboxandpressSearchbutton).
-
8/6/2019 PDF Vol 10 No 07 SI 1127-1148 Russi Longobardi
4/22
1130 Ge rman Law J ou rna l [Vol.10No.07librarianatWashington&LeeLawSchoolofLexington,Virginia, lists614studentedited
journals,bothgeneralandspecialized,intheU.S.
Sucharapidproliferationof lawreviews isalsopartlyattributabletotherecognition,on
thepartof law schools,of theeducationalbenefitsof such studentrunoperations.12
Educationalbenefitswhichmaybesummarizedasfollows:
[I]nwriting theNote orComment requiredofeach lawjournalmember, the
studentundertakesaresearchandwritingresponsibilityunparalleledinthelaw
school curriculum and rarely matched in the careers of most lawyers. The
average student spendsmuch of an entire year researching andwriting her
paper, usually with several upperclass journal members providing close
supervision.Asamatterofnecessity,thestudentmustmastereveryavenueof
legal
research,
both
printed
and
computerized,
and
must
quickly
become
proficient with the acceptable formats and citation methods found in the
"Bluebook." The studentmust also become intimately familiarwith theway
lawyers structure legal arguments, in both a logical and persuasive sense.
Finally, the studentmust condenseher research into the clearest,mostwell
writtenpieceshehaseverproduced,asthiswillmostlikelybethefirsttimeher
workwillbeconsideredforpublicationinsuchaprominentforum.
NotonlydothelawreviewmembersgainfromwritingtheirNoteorComment,
but all of the other tasks that theymust perform significantly sharpen their
practical skills and enhance their ability to communicate at a scholarly and
professionallevel.Theprocessofeditingworkswrittenby,andinteractingwith,thenation'sleadinglegalscholarsnotonlyprovidesaneducationalbenefitbut
instillsonewithasenseofconfidenceand legitimacy.Additionally,whilecitechecking and editing these articles, students are often forced to track down
obscure and ancient sources, a hassle to students, but a task that deeply
indoctrinatestheminadvancedmethodsoflegalresearch.13
Empirical research has also been undertaken in this respect. It is, in fact, possible to
mentionasurveyofattorneys, lawprofessors,andjudgesacross theUnitedStateswho
were, among other things, asked to evaluate how helpful they felt their law review
experiencewasinseveralcategories:enhancingtheprecisionoftheirwritingandediting,
12See,supra,note8,779.
13
Mark
A.
Godsey,Educational Inequalities, theMythofMeritocracyand theSilencingofMinorityVoices:The
NeedforDiversityonAmericasLawReviews,12HARVARDBLACKLETTERJOURNAL(HARV.BLACKLETTERJ.)59,65(1995);Seesupranote1,20:ANotegenerallyanalyzesarecentcasethathaseithersolvedorcreatedalegalproblem.;See supranote 1,19:AComment, instead, seeks to reveala legalproblemand thenattempts toproposea
solutiontothatproblembytheendofthecomment.
-
8/6/2019 PDF Vol 10 No 07 SI 1127-1148 Russi Longobardi
5/22
1131StudentEditedLegalPeriodicalsinEurope2009]improving their ability to work with others, and teaching them substantive law.
14
Preferenceswerefurtherscaledfromzerotofive,withzeromeaningthatthelawreview
experiencehadnotyieldedanybenefittotheinterviewee,andfivethatithadturnedout
tobehelpfulinhoningtheskillinquestion.Formerlawreviewmembersenthusiastically
endorsed lawreviewsfortheir improvementofwritingandeditingskills.. . .[T]hemean
responseforjudgeswas4.02,forprofessors3.73,andforattorneys3.66.15
Insum,theroleofstudenteditedlawreviewscanbesynthesizedasfollows:
[L]awreviewsofferanoutletforfreshandinnovativeideasandprovideavenue
for students, professors, politicians and practitioners to discuss and debate
issuesofinteresttolegalmindedindividuals.Thesepublicationsunquestionably
serveasthelegalcommunity'sprimary"marketplaceofideas.16
II.LawReviewsandFacultyEducationintheUnitedStates
Inacriticalrecollection17
ofthemannerinwhichfacultyrecruitingtakes(orusedtotake)18
placeintheUnitedStates,professorJamesGordleyofBoaltHallLawSchoolobserved,as
tothelawreviewexperience,howanewlyappointedmember,
[W]ho forover ayearhashadprofessorspointouthisdeficiencies, cannowpoint out theirs. He rewrites their articles, adding arguments of his own,
deleting arguments he considers to be weak, criticizing the citation ofauthorities,andaltering the styleuntil thepiecehas the lawyerlike toneofa
bondindenture.Inhisthirdyear,ifhebecomesanofficerofthelawreview,hehas the final say about which articles should be published, and about how
severely to treataprofessorwhostubbornlyclingstohisownargumentsand
style.19
14MaxStieretal.,LawReviewUsageandSuggestionsforImprovement: ASurveyofAttorneys,Professors,and
Judges,44STANFORDLAWREVIEW(STAN.L.REV.)1467,1491(1992).
15Id.
16See,supra,note13,59.
17See,supra,note3. Id.,384:Theauthorscriticalattitude towards faculty recruitmentmethods in theU.S. isevidentinhisclosingevaluation:Perhapsthebestwayforanyofustopromoteaflourishingoflegalscholarship
atourschoolsistospendlesstimerecruitingandmoretimethinkingaboutlaw.
18Consideringthereferencedworkwaswrittenmorethanadecadeago.
19See,supra,note3,37071.
-
8/6/2019 PDF Vol 10 No 07 SI 1127-1148 Russi Longobardi
6/22
1132 Ge rman Law J ou rna l [Vol.10No.07Despite thecriticalandanalyticalthinkingskillswhichsuchaprocessmayhelpstudents
develop,20heseemedhowevertoberatherscepticalinregardtotheactualscholarly
fitness of graduates educated in the law school system. In particular, his scepticism
emergesfromthisstatementregardingthewayfacultyrecruitmenttakesplace,criticising,
thewaycompetitionamonglawfirmsandlawschoolsaffectsrecruitment.Tobethebest,
theytrytohireandpromotethebest.Highlyqualifiedgraduatesthereforecommandhighpricesbutformuchthesamereasonasthoroughbredcolts:notbecauseofwhattheyhave
achieved butbecause ofwhat theymay achieve someday. . . .Brightpeople arehired
before they are trained as scholars, given a status so high that they cannot get their
trainingbyworkingunderaseniorscholar,andgiven littletimetotrainthemselves.The
same competitive forces that produced the attractive offer then demand that the law
schoolgetridofthemiftheydonotquicklyshowtheycandofirstclassscholarlywork.21
In
other
words,
it
seems
that
academics
hired
right
out
of
law
school
are
simply
unfit
to
takeontheburdensofscholarlydiscourse.Whilethiscriticismgoestotheheartoftheway
inwhich facultyrecruitment iscarriedout, it isrespectfullysubmittedthatthepicture it
appearstodrawofAmericanlegaleducationisoverlydark,particularlywhencomparedto
legaleducationasitusuallytakesplaceincontinentalEurope.
True,J.D.smayneedtoteachthemselveshowtobecometruelegalscholars,andneed
todo so fast tomeet thedeadlines for tenure.However,wemustnt forget toconsider
thatfacultyselectionistakingplaceamongststudentsthatgenerallymighthavespent
little to no time outside law school. And yet, among the false positives, there will
inevitablyalsobetruepositives,i.e.scholarsthatareabletofindtheirwaydespitethe
lack of further postgraduate (e.g. doctoral) education. And this,we feel, is one of the
meritsattributablealsotothelawreviewinstitution,toenableatleastsometocomeout
oftheirshellearlyonintheiracademiccareer,gainingvaluableyears.
Trying toprovideamorebalanced readingofprofessorGordleysview, itcould thenbe
saidthatthecauseoftheallegedacademicimmaturityofnewlyrecruitedlawprofessors
intheU.S.maybefoundmoreintheabruptnessandearlystageatwhichtherecruitment
processtakesplacethanintheactualilleducationthatlawschoolandinparticularlaw
reviewmembershipmayprovidecandidateswith.
Studentedited law reviews, instead, offer promising students a means to express
themselvesandbeheard, learnskillswhichwouldotherwisebe learnedonly lateron in
theirscholarlycareer;asexemplifiedbythefactthat:
20See,supra,note13.
21See,supranote3,380(emphasisadded).
-
8/6/2019 PDF Vol 10 No 07 SI 1127-1148 Russi Longobardi
7/22
1133StudentEditedLegalPeriodicalsinEurope2009]Similartoleadarticles,studentcommentscanbeinfluential.Indeed,withsome
regularity,studentcommentshavebeensothoroughandthoughtfulthatthey
have resulted in significant attention and impact. For instance, courts and
scholars often cite favourably to student articles for their research and/or
analyticvalue.22
Inthis respect,there ismuch tobesaidregardingthetrendwhichthewaveofstudent
editedlawreviewsmaybebringingaboutinEurope.
III.LawReviewsandFacultyEducationinEurope
ItisapracticeinEuropeanor,moreaccurately,ContinentalEuropean23
facultyrecruitment
that a particular relationship be established with a mentor, called Doktorvater or
Habilitationsvater
in
Germany,
24
Maestro
in
Italy.
25
In
Germany,
in
particular,
this
is
probablyduetotheverytimeconsumingtrainingrequiredforaDoctorateandafurther
period of study called Habilitation that brings scholars in their late thirties ready for
appointment.26
In Italy, instead,althoughaDoctorate isall that isgenerally required to
obtainaprofessorialappointment,itisthemaestrowhoultimatelydetermineswhethera
certainpupilwillorwillnotachievetenure.27
22See,supranote1,19.Forasupportingstatement,underlininghowthelackofstudenteditedlawreviewsintheUnited Kingdom affected the facultys publication experience, see TonyWeir, Recruitment of Law Faculty inEngland,41AM.J.COMP.L.355,359(1993)(Firstappointmentsbeingmadeatsuchayoungage,itisunrealistictoexpectapplicantstohavedonemuchinthewayofpublication,perhapsacasenoteorabookreview.Editorialexperiencecannotbelookedfor,sincethemajorlawreviewsarenotrunbystudents.).
23TheauthorspersonalexperienceandresearchhasbeenlimitedtoGermanyandItaly.Therefore,wheneverthe
termContinentalEuropean isusedtorefertoaparticularsystemof legaleducationorfacultyrecruitment,areferenceshouldbereadtoGermanyandItalyonly.While,ofcourse,thisdoesnotexcludethatsimilarsituationsmayariseinothercontexts,theresearchandexperienceinourpossessiondonotallowustodrawanybroaderconclusions.
24JrgenKohler,SelectingMinds:TheRecruitmentofLawProfessorsinGermany,41AM.J.COMP.L.413,41920(1993).
25UgoMattei&PierGiuseppeMonateri,FacultyRecruitmentinItaly:TwoSidesoftheMoon,41AM.J.COMP.L.427,passim(1993).
26See,supra,note24.
27See,supra,note25,435(Newprofessorsarecooptedbymaestrionthebasisofgentleman'sagreements.Sooneneeds,firstofall,tobethediscipleofamaestro.Amaestroteachesonehowtowritethegraduationthesisorthedoctoraldissertation,andhowandwheretopublishthefirstpapers.Hesuggestswhattostudyandthe
topic
of
a
book.
He
introduces
the
young
scholar
to
editors
and
publishers.
He
entrusts
the
young
scholar
to
deliverapaperatconferenceswherehewas invitedbutcannotattend.Themaestro issupposed toknowthevalueofhisdiscipleandthecontentofhiswriting,andhe issupposedtodefendhim. Infact, it isthemaestrowhoasksafacultyforapostforhisdisciple;hewillvoteandinfluenceotherstovoteforcommitteememberson
thebasisoftheirwillingnesstoappointhisdisciple.).
-
8/6/2019 PDF Vol 10 No 07 SI 1127-1148 Russi Longobardi
8/22
1134 Ge rman Law J ou rna l [Vol.10No.07Thisstateof, sotosay,dependencebetweenpotential teachersand tenuredprofessors
withinthefacultyeducationandrecruitmentprocessdoes, inourview,alsoreactonthe
generalstudentattitudetowardslegalresearchinEuropeanLawSchools.
The professors hierarchical preeminence over all other figures present in legal
academia, in fact,oftenendsupputtinganunintendedbut inevitabledistancebetweenstudentsand teachers.
28Continental law studentsaregenerallyexpected to study their
textbooksandlistentolecturesthatdonotgenerallyrequirethemtoparticipateactively,
but merely to listen and take notes for later study at home. The lack of student
participation, in particular, is translated in very limitedwriting requirements: rarely do
students have to write papers on particular topics and to later engage in a proper
discussionthereupon.Besideswriting,theconferencelikenatureoflecturesincontinental
Europealsogivesamorelimitedspacefororaldiscussion,ifanyatall,thanisavailableto
American
students,
for
instance,
through
the
use
of
the
Socratic
method.
29
It can then be inferred that, on a pedagogical level, the narrower space30
for teacher
student interaction (bothonawrittenandanoral level) likelytranslates inmore limited
development incomparisontostudentseducated intheU.S. ofthoseargumentative
abilitieswhichlawstudentswillneedmost:lawyerswriteandargue,andsodojudgesand
professors.
Withparticularreferencetowritten legalargument,thedoorsto itstheoryandpractice
generallyopen(forContinentalEuropeanstudents interested inmaking legalscholarship
theirprofession)asoneundertakesafurtheracademicdegree(usuallyaDoctorate),under
the supervision of a maestro or doktorvater.31
While, of course, this leads to the
28 SeeOliverUnger, ERASMUSSNICHT, Iss.2/Art.9, FREIBURG LAW STUDENTS JOURNAL (FREIBURG L. STUDENTS J.) 7(2008) (remarking the higher level of interaction that a German law student on exchange at Oxford enjoysbecauseofthelackoftheLehrstuhlhierarchien(Germanprofessorialhierarchy)).
29 See, e.g., Elizabeth Garrett, The Socratic Method, http://www.law.uchicago.edu/socrates/soc_article.html(statinghowthepurposeunderlyingtheuseoftheSocraticmethodistolearnhowtoanalyzelegalproblems,toreason by analogy, to think critically about one's own arguments and those put forth by others, and tounderstandtheeffectofthelawonthosesubjecttoit.).
30Notall teacherstudent interaction isexcluded in theContinentaleducationsystem. In Italy, for instance,allstudentsarerequiredtoproduceawrittendissertationthatmayevenamounttothelengthofasmallbookandto laterdefend it inthedegreeawardingceremony.However, it isouropinionthatasinglebig instance inwhichstudentsaretocompleteasubstantialwrittenassignment(particularly ifcomparedtothetimestudentsspend inconferencelike lecturesoverthecourseoftheireducation)stilltranslates in lowerwritingabilitiesforfreshlawgraduates,incomparisontoAmericanones.This,forthesamereasonthatrunningamarathononcein
a lifetime (andwithoutprevious training) stillmakesoneaworse runner than someonewho trains regularly,albeitonshorterdistances.Itisonlypracticethatmakesperfect.
31See, id.,435 (mentioning that thepublicationofa so tosaydisciplesfirstpapers takesplaceunder the
supervisionofamaestro.).
-
8/6/2019 PDF Vol 10 No 07 SI 1127-1148 Russi Longobardi
9/22
1135StudentEditedLegalPeriodicalsinEurope2009]appointmentofprofessorsthathavebeenabletobenefitfromthenecessarytimeand
mostimportantlyguidancetobecomematurescholars,32itexacerbatesthedetachment
ofordinarylawstudentsfromlegalwritingandpublication.
A clear symptomof thisdetachment is foundwith lawpractitioners in countrieswhere
suchasegregationexists.Thesepractitionersaregenerallydisadvantaged inobtaining
teachingpositions.33
Itcanbehypothesizedthatthishappensbecausetheeducationwhich
practitioners receive (no researchdegreesare required togainbaradmission)doesnot
generallyaffordthemachancetodevelopthatdepthinlegalanalysiswhichonlyafurther
careerintheacademiadiscloses.
Another indicator of the plausibility of the hypothesis herein sketched is the absolute
preponderanceofpeerreviewedjournals,34
inamannerthatexacerbatesthesegregation
between
professors
and
the
rest
regarding
participation
in
legal
scholarship.
In
fact,
peerreviewedjournalsarethedesignatedpublicationvenueforprofessorsorapprentice
teachers:notasamatterof, sotosay,aspiritofcaste,butratherasaconsequenceof
thefactthatthelattergroupsareusuallytheonlyonespossessingthenecessaryskillsto
publishpapersthatwillhaveanimpact.
Inthisrespect,thebirthofstudenteditedlawreviewsmaybeasignthatwhathasbeena
cultural barrier between students and active participation in legal scholarshipmay be
startingtocrumble inContinentalEuropeaswell.Thepossiblebenefitisevident.Onthe
onehand,thedistinctivelyEuropeantraditionofacademicapprenticeshipwhich,after
all,doeshelpteachers intheirintellectualripening,mayextend itsreachtolawstudents
tryingtopublishtheirpapersaswell,providingthemwithamorerigorousintellectualand
academicworkoutearlyonintheireducationalpath.This,inturn,mightprovidestudents
with abetter knowledgeofwhatacademic life isabout, soas to confront themwithawiderrangeofavailableprofessionalchoicesupongraduation,therebyalsoincreasingthe
poolofpotentialteachersandtheiroverallbrilliance,ifwhatonecommentatorsaidwas,
atleastpartially,true.35
32UgoMattei&PierGiuseppeMonateri,Foreword:TheFacesofAcademia,41AM.J.COMP.L.351,352(1993)(A
possiblecriticismtotheapprenticeshipsystembasedontherelationshipbetweenprofessorandpupil[isthatit]
couldinhibitthedevelopmentofnewideas.).
33BernardRudden,SelectingMinds:AnAfterword,41AM.J.COMP.L.481,48384(1993)(Notonlydoesthebarplayasmallroleinselectingacademicprofessors,butthereseemstobelittlerecruitmentoffulltimeprofessorsfromtheranksoftheprofession.Thismaybebecause...thescholarsfeelacertaindisdainforthepragmatici.).
34 See, supra,note1,660,693 (Highlighting the internationaluniquenessof theAmerican law review system,
implying
that
peer
reviewed
journals
generally
prevail
elsewhere).
35See,supra,note33,48687([I]twouldseemverylikelythatthenumberofablelawstudentseagertobecome
alawprofessormustbeproportionatelymuchsmaller[incountriesotherthantheU.S.]thanthenumbersreadytospendtheir livesasprofessorsofsomeotherfieldof learning.Sincesomanygoodstudentsdonotapplyforlawposts,onesuspects that theaverageof theabilityavailable in thepoolof talent is lower than in thoseof
-
8/6/2019 PDF Vol 10 No 07 SI 1127-1148 Russi Longobardi
10/22
1136 Ge rman Law J ou rna l [Vol.10No.07Additionally,thefactthatmoreandforemost moreexperiencedpupilsmightdecide
toundertakethepathofacademicapprenticeshipmightfurtherincreasetheirintellectual
autonomyvisvistheintellectualorientationsoftheirrespectivemaestroordoktorvater,
in a manner that may help them come out of their shell in expressing their views
(thereby favouringscholarly innovation).Thisway,thepresenceofamentorwouldonly
serve its designated purpose: that of providing suggestions and constructive criticism,
ratherthantheestablishmentofaformofculturalhegemonyovertomorrowsideas.
Last,butnot least,thewaystudents lookatthe law is inherentlydifferentfromtheway
lawprofessorsdo.While the latter,at least inContinental legalscholarship,areused to
dealingwithcomplexityandhighdoctrinalelaboration,students(andpractitionersalike)
generallyrequirecleanerarguments,whoselogicalflowbeapparenttothereader.Inthis
respect,webelieve that theonsetofdifferent studenteditedpublicationvenueswhere
students
decide
who
gets
published,
might
provide
a
valuable
alternative
to
the
professorial, more elaborate, yet sometimes more obscure, style of writing.
Simplificationdoesnotalwaysmean lesserscholarlyquality. Instead, itmay indeedhelp
make scholarly thoughtaccessible towider scoresof legaloperators, firstand foremost
practitioners,makingthempayattentiontowhatUniversitieshavetosay,therebybridging
oneoftencontroversialgapbetweentheoryandpractice.36
C.ReThinkingtheRoleofStudentEditedStudentPublications
I.TheLimitsofLawReviewsintheU.S.
WhiletheintroductionofAmericanstylestudenteditedlawreviewsmayprovebeneficial
for theEuropean legalcommunity ingeneral,endorsementof thisphenomenoncannotcomewithoutacknowledgingthepreviousconsiderationsofthedrawbacksofthestudent
edited law review system and of possible alterations that may make it work more
effectivelyfortheEuropeanscholarlycommunity.
Firstofall,ithasbeensubmittedthatwhilethegreateducationalvalueoflawreviewsfor
studenteditorsmayjustifytheirmaintenance,itmighthavedonesodespitethefactthat
offerexceededdemand.37
Thishas, in turn,causedsomecommentators toobservehow
othersubjects.Itseemstofollowthat,bycomparisonwiththeircolleaguesinotherfaculties(andonthewhole,andbyandlarge,andpresentreadersalwaysexcepted)lawprofessorsarestupid.).
36This isthespiritwhichanimatedthecreationofthefirst lawreviews intheUnitedStates;see,supra,note8,
741.
37HaroldC.Havighurst,LawReviewsandLegalEducation,51NORTHWESTERNUNIVERSITYLAWREVIEW(NW.U.L.REV.)22,24(1956)(Whereasmostperiodicalsarepublishedprimarilyinorderthattheymayberead,thelawreviews
arepublishedprimarilyinorderthattheymaybewritten.)(
-
8/6/2019 PDF Vol 10 No 07 SI 1127-1148 Russi Longobardi
11/22
1137StudentEditedLegalPeriodicalsinEurope2009]thepresenceoftoomanylawreviewsintheU.S.mighthaveeventuallybroughtaboutan
overalldecreaseinthequalityofpublishedscholarship.38
Additionally,theincredibleamountofsubmissionstopU.S.lawreviewsreceivesometimes
forceseditors toconsiderotherextrinsicdataasaproxy foranarticlesquality.39
Inthis
respect,anauthorspreviouspublicationhistory,orthelawschoolhe/sheisaffiliatedwithmay sometimes doom an article to rejection at a highly ranked law review.
40 This
consideringtherolethatpublicationintoptiervenuesplaysintheprofessorappointment
and tenure process does further contribute tomaking the rich richer, and the poor
poorer:teachersbeingappointedatlowerrankedlawschoolsmayfindithardertomake
theirvoicesheard in the legalcommunity,and topossiblygain recognition forthe ideas
theymighthavecontributedto.
Finally,
law
reviews
do
not
generally
provide
feedback
as
to
the
acceptance
or
rejection
decision,sothat,whenfacedwithmultiplerejections,authorsareleftwonderingwhether
their longawaited work has been rejected because the topic was not of interest, or
because thevolumewas fullor, in theworst case scenario,because it lackedacademic
rigour.41
Itisthislastpointwhich,wefeel,deservesthemostcriticism.Feedbackistheveryengine
ofscholarlycreationandimprovement.Leavingauthorstowonderthecausesofapossible
rejectionmay,moreoftenthannot,spurthemtokeepseekingpublicationofthearticle
somewhereelse,whilemissingpossibleroomforimprovement.
38See,supra,note7,26(quotingprofessorRobertJaris,NovaSoutheasternUniversityLawCenter)(Nowadays,youcouldgetanythingpublished,hesaid.Icouldpublishmygrocerylistsomelawreviewsaresodesperate.The
reality is [law school] deans should come out against somany law reviews and the number of times theypublish.).
39See,supra,note5,5.Forsomesamplefigures,seeEugeneVolokh,QuestionsforLawReviewArticlesEditors,12 September 2005, available at http://volokh.com/posts/1126582538.shtml (last visited Apr. 15, 2008)(respondents to Professor Volokhs blog post speak of 80100 submissions perweek in the high submissionseason).
40 See Paul L. Caron, What Are Law Review Articles Editors Looking For?, 24 March 2006, available athttp://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2006/03/what_are_law_re.html(lastvisited15April2008)(mentioningtheprestigeofanauthorsemployerasapossibleinfluencingfactorforlawrevieweditors).
41 See Bernard J. Hibbits, Last Writes? Reassessing the Law Review on theAge of Cyberspace, 71NEW YORK
UNIVERSITYLAWREVIEW (N.Y.U.L.REV.)615,645 (1996) ([T]hey [i.e.studenteditors]have increasingly refused toprovide rejected law reviewauthorswith substantivewrittenorevenoral reasons for their rejection.There islittle documentary evidence as to when editors began to abandon the practice of providing reasons, but
anecdotes
suggest
that
by
the
late
1970s
it
had
died
out
at
all
but
a
few
institutions,
accelerated
perhaps
by
the
.
.
. professorialstrategyofmultiplesubmissions.Studentsweretoopressedandtoostressedtoprovidereasonsorfeedback.Thisdeprived facultyofpotentialuseful inputandunfortunatelyhelped tocreateanatmosphere inwhichitwaseasytoimputeimproperselectionmotivestostudenteditorswhonolongermadeevenapretense
ofofferingevidencetothecontrary.)
-
8/6/2019 PDF Vol 10 No 07 SI 1127-1148 Russi Longobardi
12/22
1138 Ge rman Law J ou rna l [Vol.10No.07Eventually,theauthorfeelsshe/hemighthaveaddedabullettoher/hiscurriculumvitae,
byaddingonemore law review toher/hispublications list. In cases,however,wherea
previous rejection has been caused by quality defects in the article (which laterwent
unnoticed), amistake hasnt been corrected and, limited though a certain ajournals
circulation may be, this exposes the whole legal community to further spreading of
imperfections or misconceptions which remained undetected at the lowerranked law
reviewsthateventuallytookchargeoftheworksdissemination.
Namely, it isaknown fact that, inwritinganarticle, it ispossiblethatauthorsmayget
tunnel vision: they focus on the one situation that prompted them towrite the piece,
usuallyasituationaboutwhichtheyfeeldeeply,andignoreotherscenariostowhichtheir
proposal might apply. This often leads them to make proposals that, on closer
examination,provetobeunsound.42
Inthisrespect,onewaytoimproveargumentsabout
the
law
may
be
that
of
a
critical
self
reassessment
of
the
authors
contributions,
as
the
abovereferencedpaperseemstosuggest.
However,anotherwaytobringafreshnew lookatsomebodysargumentwouldbethat
which has long been abandoned in the law reviewworld, but cannot deserve enough
praise: constructive feedback. In order to solve, at least part of, these problems, one
prominentcommentatorproposedthesubstitutionoflawreviewswithindependentweb
publication by the authors themselves, cutting out themiddleman.43
The same author
furtherproposedthat,inordertopreventwebpublishedworksfrombecomingunfindable
in a sea of information, a legal academic institution . . . created, publicized, and
maintained aWeb site towhich all lawprofessors could submitorhypertextually link
theirscholarlywork.Thesitewouldbesomewhatsimilartoanelectronicarchiveinsofaras
scholarsandotherswouldaccessittolookforarticles.44
Today,thisseemstoustherole
thathasgraduallybeenachievedby scholarship repositories suchas, for instance,SSRNandBepress.
42EugeneVolokh,TestSuites:AToolfor ImprovingStudentArticles,440,availableathttp://www.law.ucla.edu/
volokh/testsuites.pdf(lastvisited15April2008).
43See,supra,note41,66788.
44Id.,675.
-
8/6/2019 PDF Vol 10 No 07 SI 1127-1148 Russi Longobardi
13/22
1139StudentEditedLegalPeriodicalsinEurope2009]The drawback in such repositories, however, is that no substantive quality control is
performed.45True,thecurrentlawreviewsystemoperateswithminimalqualitycontrolin
thegenerallyaccepted(peerreview)senseofthatterm.46
Inourview,however,thisis
notasufficientargumenttodismisstheneedforqualitycontrolaltogether.47
First of all, there still exist traces of quality controls in the way articles are currently
selectedby lawjournals. Inparticular,weare referring to theweightgiven toexpedite
requests.Lowerranked law reviewsgenerally receive less submissionsand, therefore, it
can be hypothesized that they use this extra time to actually read the submitted
contributions.Onceanauthorreceivesapublicationofferfromonesuchlawreview,she
thenshootsanexpedite requestupwards tootherjournals, thatenduppayingcloser
attentiontomanuscriptsalreadyjudgedtobeofpublishablequality. Inthisrespect,one
studenteditorhasobservedthat[t]helowerjournal[sic]vetouttheweakerarticlesand
the
cream
rises
to
the
top.
48
45AsHibbitshimselfrecognizes;see,id.,67172.
46Id.
47InBernardJ.Hibbits,YesterdayOnceMore:Skeptics,ScribesandtheDemiseofLawReviews,30AKRONL.REV.267(1996),professorHibbitsattemptstoprovideacounterargumenttothelackofqualitycontrolcriticismthathasbeenmadeaboveinthetext.Inparticular,heseemstoarguethat:1)qualityinanelectronicselfpublishingsystemcouldbemaintainedviaa systemofposthoc readercomments . . . .Goodarticleswouldpresumablyreceivegoodcomments;badarticleswouldreceivebadcommentsornocomments.(Id.,295)(inamannerthat,therefore, would not so much differ from the evaluation systems currently adopted by websites such aswww.youtube.com, althoughwith reference to different types of content); 2) [i]n a selfpublishing system,
qualitycontrolwouldalsobeenforcedbyselfpolicing.....[S]elfinterestwouldsuggestthatlawprofessorspostquality material lest they publicly embarrass themselves and do serious damage to their own academic
reputation.
(Id.,
297)
It
is
respectfully
submitted
that
such
an
argument
might
however
display
some
criticalities.
Infact,ontheonehand,Hibbitscorrectlyperceiveshow[i]nstantdisseminationoflegalscholarship...hasthepotentialofprovoking instantreaderresponseswhichcanreachalegalauthordirectly,canreachherwhilehermindisstillonhersubject,andcanreachherwhileshecanstillreactand/ormakerevisionsinlightofcommentsreceived.(Id., 280). In this respect, it is a known fact that the type of feedback that usually calls for animprovementorhowevera reassessmentofaworksconclusions isgenerallyacriticalandfromtheauthorspointofviewnegativeone.Yet,inaworldwithoutlawreviews,authorsscholarlycaliberwouldinteralia bederivedfromtherelativesuccessinelicitingpositivecommentsfrommanyscholarlyreaders(orfromafewhighprofile ones). (Id., 300). Now imagine an author, particularly a relatively young one (e.g. a studentpostgraduateordoctoral ,ayoungassociate,anewlyhiredprofessor),whowasconfrontedwiththeoptionofpublishingaworkinprogressinordertoobtainfeedback,buttodosowiththeriskofexposinghimself/herselftotheacademiccommunityspossiblynegativejudgment,whichcouldchillher/his incentivetopublishaltogether(an interesting hint to the problem is done by Dan Markel, Whither SSRN?, 19 January 2006, available athttp://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/prawfsblawg/2006/01/whither_ssrn.html (last visited 15 April 2008)). Theintermediate solution consisting in thepartial substitution of law reviewswith studenteditedworkingpaperseries(see,infra,p.1140)couldprovideaviableintermediateground,accommodatingtheneedsofthat(moreor
less conspicuous) segmentof legalauthorship thatmaydemand somepreemptive feedback,beforeactuallygoingpublic.
48 See Posting by an anonymous EditorinChief on The Volokh Conspiracy, http://volokh.com/posts/
1126582538.shtml#19143(13September2005).
-
8/6/2019 PDF Vol 10 No 07 SI 1127-1148 Russi Longobardi
14/22
1140 Ge rman Law J ou rna l [Vol.10No.07D.AProposalfortheAmericanLawReviewSystem
Inlightoftheaboveconsiderations,anewproposalforchangecanbemade.Notadrastic
one that would require doing away with law reviews but, on the contrary, one that
enhancestheirroleasdisseminatorsofqualitylegalknowledge.
Thereiswideconsensusonthefactthattherearemorelawreviewsthanwouldactually
beoptimaltoallowforthepublicationofqualityscholarshipalone.Additionally, it isthe
growingnumberoflawreviewsthatmayactuallybethecauseoftheurgetopublishor
perishthathitlawfacultiesacrossAmericainrecenttimes,aneffect(ratherthanacause)
ofwhichmightthenbethedecreaseinoverallqualityofpublishedarticles.49
The usefulness of lowertier law reviews as a vehicle of scholarship dissemination has
therefore
become
limited,
probably
bringing
more
of
an
educational
service
to
students
thanabenefittothelegalcommunity.Ontheotherhand,lowertierjournalshaveinstead
becomeasourceofexternalbenefitstothe legalperiodicalindustryonthewhole,by
screeningoutworsearticleswhileopeningthewayforbetteronestobeacceptedinmore
prestigiousvenuesuponrequestofexpeditedreviews.
Why, then, not reduce the number ofjournals, substituting somewith onlineworking
paperseries?Afirstexperimentthereof(albeitinEurope)alreadyexists,anditisBocconi
SchoolofLawStudentEditedPapers.50
Thesearethebasicfunctioningrulesthatcouldgovernsuchpublicationvenues:51
(a) substantial review of submitted contributions, as well as supplying
constructive feedback to authors;52 (b) no more bluebooking: this wouldenhancethetimeeditorsactuallyspendthinkingabouttheintellectualmeritsof
49See,supra,note41,640.
50 Available at www.bocconilegalpapers.org (last visited 23 June 2009). There actually exists another similarexperiment,althoughoutsidethelegalfield:theconcernedpublicationisWORKINGPAPERS(est.1996),availableathttp://www.pennworkingpapers.org/index.html. It is a journal published by graduate students in RomanceLanguagesattheUniversityofPennsylvania,showcasingoriginalworksinprogressbygraduatestudents,givingthemtheopportunitytopresenttheirresearchinitspreliminarystagesandtoreceivefeedbackfromcolleagues
51Allinall,wefeelthatdirectprovisionofconstructivefeedbackbytheserieseditorsandtheadoptionofopensubmission policies i.e. not restricting submission to specific groups of individuals could become thedistinguishing featuresof studenteditedworkingpaper series, in comparison toexistingworkingpaper series
availableatmostlawschools.
52Cf.RonenPerry,DeJure[sic]Park,39CONNETICUTLAWREVIEWCONNTEMPLATIONS(CONN.L.REV.CONNTEMPLATIONS)54, 58 (2007) (discussing the similar role of students in some Israeli law reviews, coedited by students and
professors),availableatwww.conntemplations.org/pdf/perry.pdf(lastvisited8May2009).
-
8/6/2019 PDF Vol 10 No 07 SI 1127-1148 Russi Longobardi
15/22
1141StudentEditedLegalPeriodicalsinEurope2009]whattheydecidetopublish,whiledisregarding apracticewhoseusefulnessis,
tosaytheleast,debated;53(c)thepossibilityforauthorstoamendtheaccepted
works even after publication; and (d) nonexclusive license, allowing later
republicationinoneofthehigherrankedjournals.
Astothefirstrule,itcouldbeobjectedthatstudentsmaylacktheabilitytoofferpervasive
ortrulyusefulcommentary.Onthecontrary,wefeelitispossiblethattheassessmentof
the clarity of an articles logical flow, or the detection of contradictory, apodictic,
excessively broad or narrow statements are skills that students naturally acquirewhen
engagingcriticallywith their studymaterials in thecourseofpreparation foranyexam,
tryingtodiscoverconnectionsanduncoveringcontradictions.54
More specifically, the following stipulated definition could be adopted to clarify the
meaning
of
substantial
review:
a
scrutiny
of
the
articles
coherence,
logical
flow
and
althoughlimitedtothecapabilitiesofastudentacademicsoundness.[U1] Thisisacrucial
aspectfortworeasons:ontheonehand,feedbackontheseissuesiswhatismostlikelyto
turnaroundapapersquality. Secondly,studentsarenotconfinedtotheworkofacopy
editor,checkingfootnotesandproofreadingformistakes,somethingwhichhardlyrequires
anylegalknowledge. Instead,theybecomeabletoengagetheirspecificlegalknowledge
inthereviewingprocess:pointingoutpotentialweaknessesinanauthorsargumentwhich
they,asapprenticelegalprofessionals,areabletospot.
Of course, thismay requireauthors tomake theirarticlesas selfcontainedaspossible,
leadingauthors,inanefforttoovercomethe inexperienceofstudentreaders, [to] feel
compelled to include large,expository sections thatplace their insight in thecontextof
53 See, supra,note1,675 (TheBluebook,with itspedanticobsessionwithdetailand zeal for regulation,hasdrivengenerationsofreviewerstoscornandsarcasm,andgenerationsofauthorsand(presumably)editorsoflawreviews to despair.); Paul Gowder, Blog Post, 12 February 2008, available at http://prawfsblawg.blogs.com
/prawfsblawg/2008/02/toomanylawre.html (last visited 15 April 2008) ([I]t ought not to be called aworthwhileskill,forseveralreasons: It'snotsomethingyouneedalawyertodo.Aparalegalcanchecktoseeifcitationsconformtotherules..... It'snotobjectivelyworthwhile... societydoesworsewiththeexistenceofabunchoflawyerswhoaretrainedtocheckwhetherthecommaisitalicizedthanitwoulddoifthattrainingwerenotpresent. . . . . It'soverallbad for thepoor foolwhogets the training. Ican'tprove that,but I intuit thatspendingacoupleyearsofone's lifescriveningoverabunchofcitationsandbeingconditionedtoenforce . . .little rules about things like citation signals will produce a person with a notable narrowness of spirit andsensibility.)Thispolicyisalreadyfollowedbythelawjournal,basedatHarvardLawSchool,UNBOUND(est.2005),availableathttp://www.legalleft.org/(lastvisited31July2008).
54
Henry
H.
Perritt
Jr.,ReassessingProfessorHibbittssRequiemforLawReviews,
30
AKRON
L.
REV.
255,
256
57
(1996) (Respectable arguments can bemade that some contributions to the literature couldbe appreciatedbetterbyexperiencedfacultymembersasopposedtolawstudents,althoughonecanmakeanequallypersuasiveargument thatgoodwriting canbeappreciatedby thosewithoutunusual levelsof specializededucationand
experience.).
-
8/6/2019 PDF Vol 10 No 07 SI 1127-1148 Russi Longobardi
16/22
1142 Ge rman Law J ou rna l [Vol.10No.07existingscholarship.
55This,however,couldonlyenhancethefunctionofscholarlyarticles
asreferencematerialforpractitionersandjudges.56
Secondly,the lackofbluebookingcouldenhance, inourview,theeducationalusefulness
of sucheditorialexperiences. Future lawyerswould in factbe given theopportunity to
actuallycultivatethoseskillsofvalidatingjudgmentsandconstructingargumentsthatwill
bemostusefultothemintheirprofessionalfutureoutsidelawschool,therebyrecovering
in full the educational value that originallyjustified the diffusion of studentedited law
reviews.
Ultimately,authors,especiallystudentsandyoungscholars,couldbegiventheopportunity
to experiment and refine their works over time, taking the publication process
piecemeal. The fact that working paper series could already represent publication
venues
for
curriculum
purposes
would
in
fact
quench
the
urge
to
publish
or
perish
that
might often take over during the process of article drafting,57
affording authors the
opportunity to better focus on the merits of the works produced by them, with the
possibility of republishing improvedworks in actualjournals, that could then properly
servetheroleofprovidersofqualitylegalinformation.
Insum,highquality legalscholarship isamatterofpatienceandmeditation.Whatvalue
doesamediocrearticlepublished in a ShechTech Law& TruckDriving LawReview58
bring to the legalcommunity?Thereareprobablyenough lasttier law reviews,which is
whytheproposalofavenuetopublishworks withthe"promise"ofrevisingthemand
improvingthemfurther mightactuallydothelegalcommunityabetterservice.Published
working papers would need to make solid, internally coherent arguments, thereby
entrustingworkingpaperserieseditorswiththepreliminaryqualityscreeningthatwould
otherwise be lacking in cases of spontaneous selfpublication on theWeb by authorsthemselves.
Itisnotgoodforthepurposeofeducatingstudentsandscholarstogivethemtheillusion
that they havepublished in a "law review" thatnobody reads. Instead, they shouldbe
55See,supra,note5,4.
56Id.;seealso,supra,note1,24(AnotherprimarypurposeofAmericanlawreviewsistheirfunctionasreferencematerial.).
57Allthemoreso,ifovertimeworkingpaperseriesmanagedtodifferentiatefromoneanotherbasedontheirprestigewhichwould, in this case, come to depend on the relative importance of the law reviewswhere
acceptedworkingpaperssubsequentlyachievedpublication.
58This fantasynamehasbeenused inahumoristic recollectionof the frustrationauthorsoftenendure in thecourseoflengthyreviewsbylawjournaleditors;see,BrandonP.Denning&MiriamA.Cherry,TheFiveStagesofLaw Review Submission, 1 September 2005, 5, available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?
abstract_id=796264#PaperDownload(lastvisited15April2008).
-
8/6/2019 PDF Vol 10 No 07 SI 1127-1148 Russi Longobardi
17/22
1143StudentEditedLegalPeriodicalsinEurope2009]directedtotakethepublicationprocessstepbystep,totaketheirtimetothinkandrevise
and, eventually, to publish in law reviews that people actually read. Having a work
published in a working paper series would ultimately enable authors to decouple the
publishorperishurge theymayhave, from thenecessityof taking some time togive
theirworkasecondthought.
Finally, it is interestingtonoticehowsimilarexperimentshavealreadybeenundertaken.
Toourknowledge,UnboundHarvardJournalof theLegalLeftexpresslyabidesby the
firsttwoofthesuggestedprinciples:Unboundseekstoundothetraditionalhierarchiesof
the studentedited legal journal. To that end, writers are responsible for their own
citations,andstudenteditorswillprovidesubstantive feedbackontheargumentsmade.
Wereinterestedinintellectualinteractionnothousekeepingforauthors.59
E.AEuropeanwaytoStudentEditedLegalPublications?
The foregoing proposal with respect to the United States may actually have an even
strongerimpactandfeasibilityintheEuropeancontext.Namely,thelack,untilrecently,of
studenteditedlawreviewsinEuropehasledtoaproliferationoffacultyeditedjournals.A
concurrentfactorresponsibleforthismaybefoundinthatnotonlyarestudenteditedlaw
journalsarecentestablishment,buttheyarealsomostlyonlineonlypublications.60
Withoutstudenteditedpublications,thesolepresenceoffacultyeditedlawjournalsmay
givewaytocriticismofthissort:theycaneasilybecomehidebound,theirboardscanbe
captured by particular viewpoints or schools of thought, and their editors can select
articlesonscholasticallyillegitimateorarbitrarygrounds.61
Should the former, however, be complemented by studentedited publications, the
tendencytosilenceunwantedopinionsinfacultyeditedlawjournalsmaydecline,seeing
thatsuchopinionsmaynonethelessfindtheirwaytothepublicthroughotherpublication
venues.Aside from thispossible risk, it can insteadbehypothesized that facultyedited
journals could turn out to be more effective in selecting papers based only on their
intellectualmerits,giventhelowerdeferencethatfacultyeditorswouldbeinaposition
to pay to extrinsic data (e.g. authors affiliation, publication record, law school of
graduation,etc.),inlightoftheirgenerallymorerobustknowledgeoftopicsdealtwithin
articlesandoftheusualpracticeofblindreviewinfacultyeditedpublications.
59UNBOUNDSubmitat,http://www.legalleft.org/?page_id=6.
60Which,forawidespreadandprobablyunjustifiedbias,mayoftenberegardedaslessinfluential.
61See,supra,note41,653.
-
8/6/2019 PDF Vol 10 No 07 SI 1127-1148 Russi Longobardi
18/22
1144 Ge rman Law J ou rna l [Vol.10No.07In conclusion, it is submitted that, if coupledwith studentedited publications, faculty
editedlawjournalscouldconclusivelybecomeEuropesmostvaluableasset.62
The lack, until recently, of studentedited publications in Europe has translated in the
situationwherebythemostregardedjournals(i.e.journalswiththehighestimpactfactor
andtotalcites)arepeerreviewed.63
This,coupledwiththefactthatpeerreviewisoftenassociatedwithahigher thresholdof substantive revision,
64make it reasonable to infer
thatapeerreviewedarticlemight,atleastwithrespecttoEuropeanlegalpublications,be
regardedasmoreauthoritativethananarticlepublishedelsewhere.65
Inthiscontext,studentjournalsshouldbeseenasagreatcomplementaryadditionrather
thanasareplacementoftheformerresources.
Not only, in fact, may they provide alternative venues for discriminated opinions,
thereby
opening
up
the
legal
marketplace
for
ideas.
Additionally,
if
run
with
the
spirit
of
working paper series,66
theymay further become a resource for nonacademicians to
refine their works for the purpose of publication in peerreviewed journals. Working
paperslaterpassedontofacultyeditedjournalscouldfurtherdisplaythatclarityrequired
in order to make students understand complex concepts, thereby also leading to a
simplificationofarticlesstructureandlanguage,enhancingtheirpossibleuseasreference
material,muchasithappensintheUnitedStates.
Insum,thiswouldenablethecreationofbothalternativechannelsforthetransmissionof
legalthoughtaswellaspowerfultoolsforthediversificationoflegalscholarship.
Inparticular, forEuropean legalscholarship,thiswould infactmeanstrikingasuccessful
balancebetween: (a) themaintenanceof few,very authoritative and selectpublication
venues, sinceapreliminary screeningwouldbecarriedoutbystudentjournals, thereby
62 See, supra,note1,693 (In theU.S., instead,[f]rom time to time thereare suggestions tocreateagreaternumberofjournalsthatarepublishedbyuniversityprofessorsratherthanstudents,andcontributionstowhichare thus approved by peers. Although suchjournals exist, they have not been able thus far to shake thetraditional,andinternationallyunique,lawreviewsystem.).
63See,Law Journals:SubmissionandRanking,http://lawlib.wlu.edu/LJ/index.aspx (selectEuropeanLaw fromthefirstscrolldownmenuandNonUSfromtheonebelowit;tick2008intheIFandCombcolumnsontherighthand sideandpress theSubmitbutton) (displaying the rankingofjournalspublishingonEuropean lawtopics:thefirststudenteditedjournal,theHANSELAWREVIEW,isatplace17).
64 See,NancyMcCormack,PeerReviewandLegalPublishing:WhatLawLibrariansNeed toKnowaboutOpen,
SingleBlind and DoubleBlind Reviewing, 101 LAW LIBRARY JOURNAL (L. LIB. J.) 1213, (2009), available athttp://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1339227(lastvisited8April2009).
65Ahintinthisdirectionstemsfromthefactthatmanylegalacademicstendtoclearlyhighlight,intherespectivepublicationrecords,whetheraparticulararticleappearedinapeerreviewedorastudenteditedjournal.
66See,suprap.1140.
-
8/6/2019 PDF Vol 10 No 07 SI 1127-1148 Russi Longobardi
19/22
1145StudentEditedLegalPeriodicalsinEurope2009]allowing facultyeditedpublicationsnot tobecomeengulfedwith submissions;
67 (b) the
creationofpowerfuleducationalopportunitiesforlawstudents,whocouldreallygainan
insightontomorrowsinnovationinitsmaking;(c)theintroductionofpublicationtools
(again, studentedited lawjournals) to both provide visibility to the works of authors
generallyleftoutfrommainstreamacademia,andsimultaneouslyprovidefeedbackforthe
laterimprovementofsuchworksforthepurposeoflaterpublicationinmoreauthoritativemedia.
Finally,thereputationofapublicationvenuewouldcometodependlessontheprestige
of the issuing law schoolbut rathermoreon thenumberofworkingpapers itseditors
managed to help successfully improve, later obtaining a slot on facultyedited law
journals.
True,
Europes
student
edited
law
reviews
are
still
a
tiny
heart
beating
in
legal
academia.
Yet, in view of the foregoing, they represent one that could pulse new life into the
Europeanwayoflegalscholarship,possiblyofferingamodelfortherestoftheworld.
67Despitethepossibleincreaseinscholarlyproductionthatmayfollowtheonsetofstudenteditedpublications.
-
8/6/2019 PDF Vol 10 No 07 SI 1127-1148 Russi Longobardi
20/22
1146 Ge rman Law J ou rna l [Vol.10No.07F.Appendix:EuropeanStudentEditedLegalPublications
CzechRepublic
COMMON LAW REVIEW (est. 2001), available at http://review.society.cz/index.php
(lastvisited23June2009)
England
CAMBRIDGESTUDENTL.REV.(est.2003),availableathttp://www.srcf.ucam.org/cslr/
(lastvisited15April2008)
Germany(publishinginEnglish)
BUCERIUSLAWJOURNAL(est.2007),availableatwww.lawjournal.de(lastvisited15
April2008)
FREIBURGLAWSTUDENTSJOURNAL(est.2007),availableatwww.freilaw.de(lastvisited
15April2008)
GTTINGEN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW (est. 2009), available at http://gojil.uni
goettingen.de/joomla/index.php?option=com_wrapper&view=wrapper&Itemid=73(lastvisited5April,2009)
HEIDELBERGSTUDENTLAWREVIEW(est.2004),availableatwww.studzr.de(lastvisited
15April2008)
KONTAKT: KIELER OSTRECHTSNOTIZEN (est. 1998), available at http://www.uni
kiel.de/eastlaw/cgibin/cms/front_content.php?idcat=60 (last visited 15 April
2008)
MARBURGLAWREVIEW(est.2008),availableathttp://lawreview.de/(lastvisited5
April2009)
Ireland
CORK ONLINE LAW REVIEW (est. 2002), available at http://www.mercuryfrost.net/
colr/index.php(lastvisited15April2008)
GALWAY STUDENT LAW REVIEW (est. 1998), available at http://www.nuigalway.ie/
law/GSLR/(lastvisited15Apr2008)
IRISHSTUDENTLAWREVIEW(est.1991),availableatwww.islr.ie(lastvisited15April
2008);
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE DUBLIN LAW REVIEW (est. 2001), available at
http://www.ucdlawreview.com/archive.htm(lastvisited15April2008)
-
8/6/2019 PDF Vol 10 No 07 SI 1127-1148 Russi Longobardi
21/22
1147StudentEditedLegalPeriodicalsinEurope2009]Italy
BOCCONI SCHOOL OF LAW STUDENTEDITED PAPERS (est. 2008) (a continuation of the
ITALIAN LEGAL SCHOLARSHIP UNBOUND WORKING PAPER SERIES), available at
http://www.bocconilegalpapers.org(lastvisited5April2009)
Netherlands/Germany
HANSELAWREVIEW(est.2005),availableatwww.hanselawreview.org(lastvisited5
April 2009). The Hanse L. Rev. is actually published by a consortium of
Universities, including Rijksuniversiteit Groningen (Netherlands), Bremen
University(Germany)andCarlvonOssietzkyUniversityofOldenburg(Germany).
-
8/6/2019 PDF Vol 10 No 07 SI 1127-1148 Russi Longobardi
22/22
1148 Ge rman Law J ou rna l [Vol.10No.07