Joining a conversation begun by James Lindgren, An Author's Manifesto, 61 U. Chi. L. Rev. 527 (1994), Prof. Tobias discusses the process of submission, review, and editorial work on articles published in student-edited law reviews.
An Author's Manifesto (Manifesto) constructively criticizes the amazingly arcane process of law review publication and affords salient suggestions for its improvement. The essay treats two aspects of this process-the selection of manuscripts and the editing of articles which sustain that venerable institution: student-edited law journals. Manifesto regales readers with many terrible tales of travesties which involve article editing but recounts comparatively few sordid stories that implicate manuscript selection. Because more, and more outrageous, abuses attend the wild and wonderful process of choosing articles, this piece focuses on manuscript selection-principally through the lens of my experiences and those of numerous colleagues, friends, and acquaintances. That effort has as much redeeming social value as, and is considerably more fun than, the empirical study of the publication process which Professors Gordon and Lindgren propose. I also have different perspectives than those two professors, as I teach at a law school that U.S. News and World Report recently ranked in the fourth quintile.
Carl Tobias, Manuscript Selection Anti-Manifesto, 80 Cornell L. Rev. 529 (1995)