IU law prof and Prawfblawg blogger Jody Madeira recently observed that she doesn't "send out many reprints at all--perhaps 20 or 25" and that "After talking to several other junior faculty from other schools, I don't believe that my reprint practices--or perhaps lack thereof?--are that unusual. It just seems that that is the logical trend in a post-paper world."
Now, however, Jody is wondering "about the benefits of reprints in terms of self-promotion":
Is it best to be diligent in sending out reprints? If so, how many? Is the similar practice of sending out e-mails with abstracts and links a satisfactory replacement for reprints? After all, it is much cheaper and more environmentally friendly. Or are such e-mails instead supplemental, or even unnecessary? Assuming one presents at conferences and is otherwise careful to publicize current scholarship, are there additional advantages to sending out reprints in terms of the tenure process? And what about interdisciplinary articles--these seem to complicate the question of what constitutes "best reprint practices." Should reprints of interdisciplinary articles be sent out only to other legal scholars, or also to faculty in other relevant departments? Are reprints more valuable when the piece is published in another discipline's journal that most legal scholars won't read (I have enough trouble just keeping up to date on relevant scholarship posted in general law reviews!)?
A fellow corporate law professor once observed that "the easiest thing in the world is to get on Steve Bainbridge's reprint list; the hardest is getting off his list." Which was pretty much true. At its peak, my reprint list had just under 400 names on it. Judges, lawyers, and, of course, lots of law professors.
I got into the law professor game before there was SSRN, email list serves, social networks, blogs, law review web sites. Westlaw and Lexis were still fairly new, very clunky, and incredibly slow. Most people still used the Index of Legal Periodicals (does it even still exist?) to find law review articles relevant to their research.
Sending out reprints was pretty much the only way to publicize your work. Today, however, by the time one sends out reprints, people who would be interested in reading it probably have already gotten a copy from SSRN or via my blog or what have you.
I've already adapted to the post-paper world by converting to electronic reprints.
But I'll second Jody's question: To reprint or not to reprint?
Is self-promotion by reprint appropriate and/or necessary? (Notice that I said "self-promotion by reprint." I'm sufficiently self-aware to realize that blogging is a form of self-promotion; indeed, a form of relentless self-promotion.)
If yes to reprints, electronic or paper?
Does field matter? Does seniority matter? Does the nature of the potential recipient matter (perhaps send reprints to judges but not to law profs)?
