This discussion raises some pertinent issues about the efficacy and ethical implications of the “anonymized” review process some prestigious legal journals employ. The critique, presented in an open letter format by an author who identifies himself as “LawProfBlawg,” expresses frustration and disillusionment with the current law review game.
Drawing on his experience of over 20 years, LawProfBlawg highlights the current biases present in standard review procedures and the many instances where his articles were rejected, often in a matter of hours. In several cases, he claims, the pieces he endorsed were also rejected, arousing suspicion among himself and fellow faculty members across different schools. He points out how certain biases, stemming from the recognition of authors by their peers in legal academia, may skew judgement and influence the review outcome.
A clue, as LawProfBlawg points out, is the review instruction that asks whether reviewers can disclose if they know the identity of the author. This suggests the “anonymizing” mechanism is not foolproof and the review process is rigged, biasing towards those reviewers in the top ten of law schools. In this context, LawProfBlawg and a co-author observed that about 70% of the authors of articles published in the top ten law reviews were graduates of, or worked in, a top-ten law school.
LawProfBlawg also criticizes the review questionnaire as leading, stating it may unintentionally bias the reviewer by suggesting weak areas in the article.
Despite the efforts of elite law journals to eliminate adulation and bias via anonymizing reviews, the proposed remedy of the issue falls short, according to LawProfBlawg. He concludes with a call for reflection and reevaluation of the existing system, one that is deemed “problematic” and “still rigged,” thereby highlighting the urgency of law review reform.
For more on LawProfBlawg’s thoughts, you can follow him on Twitter.
Read the full discussion on Above The Law.