As a co-authored piece just recently reminded me, I’ve a huge grudge against the Blue Book. (Which hasn’t yet escalated on their side to using me as an example as a but see. Or worse! Actually, I’m not sure that the great platonic blue book guardians even know I’m mad at them.) As I wrote in 2007:
“Rule 15.1. R. 15.1 states that when there are two or more authors, you have a choice:
Either use the first author’s name followed by “ET AL.” or list all of the authors’ names. Where saving space is desired, and in short form citations, the first method is suggested . . Include all authors’ names when doing so is particular relevant.
This seems to me to express a pretty strong non-listing preference. The “problem” is that much good interdisciplinary work results from collaborations among more than two authors – it is the nature of the beast . . . This seems like a trivial objection, but it will take on increasing weight over the next ten years as empirical legal studies really comes online in the major law reviews.”
The trend toward interdisciplinary, multiple authored, pieces continues. And though it’s true that law reviews are a dying beast, there is still no good reason at all for omitting the names of authors in the first footnote in which the work is cited. “Saving space” is a terrible argument: we could do that by getting rid of useless and often inaccurate parentheticals “explaining” the source, often written by cite-checking second year students.
If I were running a law review seeking to differentiate itself, or an author negotiating with a few journals, my deal points would be: (1) color graphics on the web version of the article; and (2) no et al. usage. That has to be more constructive and useful than “lead article” status!