When the review just isn’t expedited enough

You may also like...

2 Responses

  1. Mike says:

    I assume you’d add timeliness-of-the-topic to your analysis. Something tells me year-late articles touching Gonzales v. Raich might as well have not been written. The same thing could apply to a topic like reparations, or “hot” issue like the countours of Crawford v. Washington. Let’s say someone credible is about to file a reparations suit. Wouldn’t it be nice to have something published close to that date? Wouldn’t it be nice to have an article touching excited utterances before the Court hands down the case. (Hey, maybe you’ll get a cite!)

    Anyhow, this whole thing stinks like the two-week’s-notice rule. When an at-will employee is terminated, it’s usually effective immediately. But if he doesn’t give two week’s notice, he will be viewed as some kind of bum. Is there any law journal that would allow an author to submit his articles one year late? It seems outrageous (to this outsider, at least) to be one-year late in publishing someone’s work.

  2. Matt says:

    As a corporate practitioner and occasional law-review submitter, I would have thought the answer is obvious: negotiate your contract! Presumably the journal sends you a contract spelling out your and its obligations; I’ve negotiated terms in one of mine, and “Levinson’s” story should inspire others to demand a timeliness term, at least from off-Broadway journals.

    As far as I know, at-will employees customarily get two weeks notice as well. The firing is effective immediately, but they get two weeks salary in compensation — which is much better than having to come in to work for two weeks after being fired.