Announcing the Law Review Table of Contents Project


I’m pleased to announce a new feature at Concurring Opinions – the Law Review Table of Contents Project. We have invited a number of the top law reviews to post the table of contents to their new issues and to provide links to the articles if they are posted on the law review’s website.

The goal of the Table of Contents Project is to provide you with a useful research tool. Finding out about the latest law review publications can be difficult. If you’re like me, you rarely read the physical issues of law reviews anymore; and you don’t have time to constantly keep checking each law review’s website to see if a new issue has been published. Now you don’t have to. Just keep reading Concurring Opinions, and information about the latest law review scholarship will be brought to you – all in one place!

Each journal’s tables of contents will be archived in two categories: (1) a category called Law Rev Contents – collecting all the law review table of contents postings; and (2) a category for each specific law review.

Participating law reviews thus far include:

* Boston College

* Chicago

* Columbia

* Cornell

* Duke

* Emory

* Fordham

* Georgetown

* GW

* Harvard

* Indiana

* Michigan

* Minnesota


* Northwestern

* Notre Dame

* Southern California

* Stanford

* Texas


* Vanderbilt

* Virginia

* Washington University

* Yale

We still have a bunch of open invitations, so we anticipate that the number of participants will grow. Unfortunately, we cannot include all law reviews, as this will overwhelm the regular content of our blog.

We hope that you find this new feature to be helpful. We’re very excited about it here, as we believe that this will be of great use to keep you informed about new legal scholarship.

You may also like...

7 Responses

  1. Jason says:

    I use the Washington & Lee library website’s RSS feed for precisely this purpose. This seems rather repetitive, unless I’m missing something that will differentiate this? (Aside from arbitrary definitions about what a “top” law review is; but now I’m just being snarky to no good purpose.)

  2. Yeah, I was thinking “Did they make some deal with W&L?” Seems to me that an RSS widget would show all law review TOC content without having to depend on law reviews to provide content… (just have to rely on W&L, which has been pretty consistent).

  3. Ted McClure says:

    Similarly, eCILP at the University of Washington ( has been doing this for several years.

  4. I have used clipping services in the past. They were fine, but our site has some features that these services will not have:

    1. Our journal contents will be archived in a general category and also in a category for each journal, where journal’s online forum content will also be discussed. Over time, these archive categories will become useful resources. One will be able to peruse the tables of contents for an entire year or more on these pages. These archive pages will also be useful for doing searches for any keywords.

    2. Journals will be providing links to online versions of their articles. This will be helpful for easy access to the scholarship.

    3. Some journals will also be posting abstracts, something that clipping services typically don’t provide.

  5. dave hoffman says:

    Apart from Dan’s point, I’ll just confess to being one of those folks who has never successfully managed to use RSS feeds for any purpose.

  6. Kaimi says:

    One more possibility, as well, is that blog comments may add value.

    Of course, some blog comments are just noise; and the law review posts don’t always draw a lot of comments. So this won’t necessarily happen every time.

    Nevertheless, hopefully, there will be some comment feedback, that could generate good discussions — i.e., “Look, it’s a new article by Solove this month, and that should be interesting given what Pasquale wrote last year, and Hoffman two years ago,” etc.

  7. greglas says:

    You all continue to amaze me with your innovations, but I’ve got to agree with some of the earlier posters — I’ve got a clips service, and for the past few days, Concurring Opinions has seemed a lot less like Concurring Opinions and a lot more like, well, tables of “top” law review contents.

    If I could have my way, I ask you to split this new service off on a separate blog so that the primary Co-Op blog can return to original posts and comments (and I do enjoy the comments too!).

    But I realize I don’t have a vote on the board of Co-Op LLC, so good luck with this new plan!