PDF Vol 10 No 07 SI 1127-1148 Russi Longobardi

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).


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).


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).


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,


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.


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.


17See,supra,note3. Id.,384:Theauthorscriticalattitude towards faculty recruitmentmethods in theU.S. isevidentinhisclosingevaluation:Perhapsthebestwayforanyofustopromoteaflourishingoflegalscholarship

atourschoolsistospendlesstimerecruitingandmoretimethinkingaboutlaw.

18Consideringthereferencedworkwaswrittenmorethanadecadeago.



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).


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.).


8/22

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.).


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


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.)(


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.)


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).


44Id.,675.


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).


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


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).


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.).


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


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).


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.



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.


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.


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)


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).


22/22

1148 Ge rman Law J ou rna l [Vol.10No.07

Documents

PDF Vol 10 No 07 SI 1127-1148 Russi Longobardi