For almost five years now, Christopher Schmidt has been the editor of the peer-reviewed journal Law & Social Inquiry. In Tips on Writing for a Peer-Reviewed Journal on Legal History Blog, he offers sound advice on submitting scholarship to a peer-reviewed law journal, concluding “The peer review process provides information. More often than not, this information—the work of an overwhelmingly conscientious group of reviewers and editors—is quite valuable. But like all information, it can be flawed. It’s subject to interpretation. If your reviewers are divided, and the journal editors choose not to accept your article, then your job is to make use of the information you’ve gained. Figure out which critiques are valid and which ones are not. Then revise the manuscript and send it off to another journal.” — Joe
- Goodbye World
- House Judiciary Committee’s Articles of Impeachment
- Implied Constitutional Powers in the Founding Era
- Witness written statements in first Judiciary Committee impeachment hearing
- The Trump-Ukraine Impeachment Inquiry Report
- Negotiating the American Constitution (1787-1789) Coalitions, Process Rules, and Compromises
- Measuring Law Faculty Scholarly Impact by Citations: Reliable and Valid for Collective Faculty Ranking
- Is There a Case for Statistical Precedent?
- When Courts Should Ignore Statutory Text
- Beck’s The Parts We Skip: A Taxonomy of Constitutional Irrelevancy
Just in case you don't get it: The views expressed are solely those of the blog post author and should not be attributed to anyone else, meaning they do not necessarily represent the views of any organization that the post author is affiliated with or with the views of any other author who publishes on this blog.
- 243,169 hits