Joan Heminway notes a growing phenomenon:
Last month, a colleague of mine received a request from a law review (one unaffiliated with her or our institution) to perform a peer review of an article that the law review was considering for publication. The period for the requested review was short--about a week--and arrived with no prior notice two weeks before classes started. No compensation was offered.
Apparently, these kinds of requests for peer review have become more common, particularly among the elite law school primary law reviews. I understand them to be a laudable attempt to improve the quality of the articles selected for publication, since law students typically are not knowledgeable or experienced enough to consistently make good judgments in that regard. This is, in that way, an interesting development, and given its value, I guess I could live with the burden of providing these peer reviews on some level--as long as my email inbox is not clogged with requests--especially at critical junctures in the academic year.
But I would suggest that the law journals intent on getting peer review of submissions collectively build a process that incorporates this kind of review more consistently in the ordinary course of their article review processes, rather than as a last-minute surprise request of an expert faculty member. This would take some effort, but law review editors-in-chief have engaged in collective action in the past to some effect. They can do it again.
Personally, I am not a fan.
|
Aug 5, 2011 ... I got an email from the University of Chicago law review yesterday, which I'm going to quote in pertinent part: I'm writing to you today on behalf ...
www.professorbainbridge.com/.../chicago-law-review-chutzpah.html
|
