A hot-off-the-presses new article from the Loyola Law Review (59 Loy. L. Rev. 1) discusses a study that was done by surveying law faculty, law review editors, lawyers and judges about law reviews. The article is titled Do law reviews need reform? A survey of law professors, student editors, attorneys, and judges.
From the article:
From the article:
"We surveyed law professors, student editors, attorneys, and judges to determine what they think about the current system of law reviews, the need for reforms, and what reforms should be implemented. We received an excellent response to the survey. A total of 1,325 law professors, 338 student editors, 215 attorneys, and 156 judges participated.... Although the present study was exploratory, has limitations, and does not definitively resolve the debate about law reviews; it nonetheless offers support for several important conclusions about them. Law reviews are likely not meeting the needs of attorneys and judges; and law professors believe that they have a capricious, negative effect on their careers. The vast majority of legal professionals and student editors believe that law reviews should be reformed and that the reforms should include blind, peer reviews and more student training. There needs to be more empirical studies about law reviews because authors' opinions about them may not reflect the views of the legal community and many of their assumptions about law reviews may lack empirical support."
No comments:
Post a Comment