Friday’s Scholarship About Scholarship
Once a week, we share links to recent papers and blog posts discussing scholarship: how it’s created, how it’s disseminated, who uses it, and so on. To suggest something for this feature, send us a note: legalscholarshipblog [at] gmail.com.
Miller, Colin, Submission Guide for Online Law Review Supplements, Version 5.0 (8/5/2011) (August 5, 2011). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1410093
This document contains information about submitting essays and articles to general online law review supplements. It covers 36 general online law reviews. This document will be updated on an annual basis and as law schools create new online law review supplements.
Rachel Toor, Shame in Academic Writing, Chron. Higher Ed., Aug. 3, 2011. (Recommended by
Even those who make it look easy—whose work is good and well published—are still struggling with issues of how to get it done, and with the shame of not doing it, or not doing it well enough, or quickly enough, or whatever they think is enough.
Craig, Carys J., Turcotte, Joseph F. and Coombe, Rosemary, What is Feminist About Open Access?: A Relational Approach to Copyright in the Academy (April 18, 2011). Feminists@law, Vol. 1, No. 1, 2011. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1888377
In a context of great technological and social change, existing intellectual property regimes such as copyright must contend with parallel forms of ownership and distribution. Proponents of open access question and undermine the paradigm of exclusivity central to traditional copyright law, thereby fundamentally challenging its ownership structures and the publishing practices these support. In this essay, we attempt to show what it is about the open access endeavour that resonates with a feminist theory of law and society – in other words, we consider what is “feminist” about open access. First, we provide an overview of a relational feminist critique of traditional copyright law and the assumptions of possessive individualism that pervade it. We then offer a brief description of the open access movement and the way in which it reflects or responds to this criticism. In doing so, we discover vital synergies between this branch of feminist legal theory and the open access movement. Ultimately, we hope to underscore the importance of an open access policy for legal journals such as this one, whose mission is to support, advance and disseminate a feminist perspective that challenges the prevailing hegemony within traditional legal scholarship. We conclude by offering ways in which this journal can help draw out the synergies between feminist criticism and the open access movement.
Brian Galle, Law Review Rankings, PrawfsBlawg, July 21, 2011. Comments on the usefulness of rankings (to writers and readers) and wishes for better ones.
Brian Galle, Peer Review at Student-Edited Journals: Best Practices?, PrawfsBlawg, Aug. 11, 2011. Discusses practices at law reviews that use some sort of peer review. Reports that he is surveying journals and will have more information later. Commenters weigh in.
David Tanenhaus, The Mysterious Inner Workings of Law and History Review, Legal History Blog, Aug. 2, 2011. The editor discusses how manuscript submissions are reviewed.
David Tanenhaus, Building a Law and History Review Issue, Legal History Blog, Aug. 4, 2011.
There are three components to building a compelling issue. First, I need to decide whether to include a forum. There is an opportunity cost because a forum uses at least 30 journal pages (the equivalent of a short article). Yet a forum provides an opportunity to include multiple perspectives on an important legal historical issue. . . .Second, although many scholars read articles in isolation and online, journal editors build an issue around a theme that will interest a broad readership. Moreover, because I have to plan issues at least a year in advance (I’m working on our issues for 2012), I often think about the relationships between manuscripts as they move through the review process. Ideally, the theme should cross time and space.
Third, a good issue needs a strong lead article as an anchor. The opening article sets the tone for the issue and should entice people to read outside of their own area of history.
Finally, because LHR has such a broader readership I try to build issues that reflect the diversity of the field. . . . I like to include articles that push boundaries and help us attract an even wider readership.
Eric E. Johnson, JSTOR: What Is It Good For?, PrawfsBlawg, July 21, 2011.
Maybe JSTOR seemed like a good idea when it was launched 16 years ago. But today, if other organizations are doing for free what JSTOR is charging for, then perhaps JSTOR should be dismantled or substantially reworked. . . .JSTOR should act now to make as much of its database free as it can, including all public domain materials and all copyrighted materials for which the requisite permissions can be obtained.
mw
