A question for law review editors: why the current practice of informing an author that their article is getting a “board read”? The ostensible reasons seem to be (a) letting the author know that some folks at the review like the article and (b) keeping the author from selecting another review before a final decision has been made. But (a) only engenders frustration if the article is not chosen. And (b) seems pretty unlikely to me. If the author has not expedited to your review, or if your decision will be made within the expedite timeframe, why do you think the author might pull the article prior to your decision? Does this ever really happen?
So a plea. Perhaps I’m only speaking for myself, but it seems like the “board read” notice is unnecessary. A board read and $3.55 will get the author a venti latte. Send a notice only if an expedite is about to expire and you need more time. Otherwise, you can let the author know about the board read after you accept or reject the article.
UPDATE: The commenters disagree, and their thoughtful responses have prompted a reconsideration. To be clear, I said from the start that getting the information about a board read is useful; it’s just nerve-rattling to get it before the board has made its final decision. I agree that the more information, the better; it’s very useful to hear how far your article progressed before rejection, and what the reasons were (other than “we receive thousands” etc.). And so to that extent, this post is poorly named. I suppose I should have called it, “Congratulations, we may or may not take your article!” Even so, the commenters have convinced me that getting this information is more useful than the anxiety-protecting paternalism of not sending it along. Especially if you can pull the “Heller parlay” (discussed below).
One more request, though, in the spirit of more information: anyone have a sense of what the ratio of board reads to acceptances is? 3:1? 5:1?
Posted by Matt Bodie on April 1, 2010 at 04:10 PM
Comments
At our (top 10) journal, the ratio of board review/acceptances is probably in the 5:1 range
Posted by: anon | Apr 4, 2010 2:47:30 AM
aa: Depends on the journal. Harvard’s board review is, I think, its 4th or 5th stage of review. (No, I don’t know what all the others are. Maybe they throw the manuscript in a pond to see if it’s lighter than a duck?) For Wisconsin the full board is the 3d.
Posted by: BDG | Apr 3, 2010 10:47:49 AM
Question: I was recently notified by a top journal that my article made it past their “initial stages” of review. Can I take this to mean that it made it to a board vote? It would be nice to know that I specifically made it this far.
Posted by: anotheranon | Apr 2, 2010 10:31:36 PM
I also agree with the majority of comments that the full read notices are useful.
K: How exactly did you go about informing Michigan and Penn about the Harvard full read? I received one of these notices myself this year, but couldn’t think of a way to tactfully notify other journals of the interest.
Posted by: AnonProf | Apr 2, 2010 8:27:09 AM
I think the tip about the full board read has two main benefits beyond those mentioned above:
1) Feedback. Making contact with the editors often establishes friendly e-mail or phone contact, which provides an opportunity to ask the editor what might improve the article after it’s rejected. Feedback can be very useful, even if it’s only feedback into the quirkiness of the articles committee.
2) The Editors’ Time. Full board reads can take a lot of time and energy, and the schools will often call to make sure they’re not wasting their time with an article that has already placed elsewhere.
Posted by: Orin Kerr | Apr 2, 2010 2:20:06 AM
I join the chorus of those who say that the information is useful.
For example, the journal might NOT be planning to make a decision within your expedite time frame, and you might not be sure whether it is worth antagonizing a review that has already accepted your piece by pleading for an extension (or another extension) to expedite. Or you might want to secure such an extension by promising to withdraw it at every journal except the one that is giving you a board read. (Such partial withdrawals were a common practice when I was an articles editor.)
Plus, as others have noted, these progress reports can give you a sense of what class of journal your article is getting traction with. That can also help you make an expedite decision. If your article has a lot of final board reads at top 10 journals, you might just turn down your acceptance at the Tertiary Review of Law and Useless Topics if it demands too quick of a response. On the other hand if it hasn’t gotten any interest anywhere, you might be more likely to be happy with what you’ve got.
Posted by: Will Baude | Apr 2, 2010 12:29:37 AM
Matt,
I’m ambivalent. I agree that it is annoying and frustrating to get a board-read notice. But it can also be helpful during the expedite process. I had an essay make it to the final law-review-wide vote at Harvard, only to be squashed like a bug. That was awful — but I made sure to let the other law-reviews in the ballpark who had indicated some interest (Michigan and Penn) know when Harvard was voting, and both of them ended up making offers. I went with Michigan and had a fantastic experience. Would they have accepted the essay otherwise? I don’t know. Maybe. But I’m sure the information about Harvard helped.
Posted by: K. | Apr 1, 2010 11:49:29 PM
Matt,
I disagree with your post, most emphatically.
You know, I’ve had a board read at Yale, one at Penn, one at UCLA, and one at Georgetown. To be sure, they didn’t accept the pieces in the end (there is always some disagreeable member on these so-called “boards,” it seems, no?), but coming in second, as it were, was more than consolation enough to me. When I finally published these pieces in the specialty journal of my home school (the West Dakota Journal of Law and Bupkas), I fought hard to add to the star footnote that my article went to the full board of 2Ls at several far more distinguished law reviews. I also put this information on my C.V. Who knows, it might even get me a chair (maybe the “Perpetual Runner-Up Professor of Law”).
Query: Could we add to the Diaynu song “Had He only given us a full board read, it would have been enough?)
Posted by: Vladimir | Apr 1, 2010 7:34:00 PM
I agree with TJ that I prefer to know there was a board read than to know nothing; on occasion I’ve also gotten details about the board vote, which is a similar kind of good news/bad news kind of deal — but after the sting wears off I’m always happier for having the additional information about the perceived quality of the piece. Pragmatically, for journals with very short deadlines, notice of a board read also allows you to give other journals a bit of advance warning that you may send them an expedite request with a very short turnaround.
So, boards, if you’re reading, please feel free not to tell Matt about whether he has a board review. But I’d like to know.
Posted by: BDG | Apr 1, 2010 6:45:31 PM
Oh, and one last point, which I suppose only applies to the highest-ranking reviews. A good number of professors I know usually expedite only 30-40 places up the ladder, since it is futile (and sometimes counterproductive) to expedite to Harvard from Podunk State Law Review (the Harvard editor would only laugh at the expedite). So a really high ranking review might want inform an author for your reason (b).
Posted by: TJ | Apr 1, 2010 6:16:38 PM
I couldn’t disagree more strongly. Yes, for an author, it is incredibly frustrating that a review “almost” accepted your article. But here are a few benefits:
1. It provides some measure of information in a process that otherwise seems a complete black box to most professors. The article that everybody immediately threw in the trash probably needs major revision before Fall; compared to an article that everybody sent to a final read, but somehow didn’t get accepted anywhere.
2. Following from (1), we also get some sense of whether rejections are merit based or based on other factors such as letterhead, author fame, etc. Not only is this useful information at a systematic level, but it should tremendously influence whether a professor at a low-ranked law school submits to that review in the future. A review that gives a low-ranked law professor a full board read is a much more promising destination than one that uses letterhead rejections.
3. Even without these tangible benefits, and taking your assumption that there is zero behavior modifying benefit to the information, I would still prefer to get those notes. Your plea relies on a model of human rationality that doesn’t describe very many humans. Another very similar example is the silence of hiring schools during meat-market season, which I think just about everybody finds frustrating. Of course, knowing that you are on the “B” list is not any more helpful than knowing you are on the “reject” list, since there is nothing to do unless one has a pending offer that is about to expire. But, at least for myself, I prefer having a rejection than hanging out in limbo forever.
Posted by: TJ | Apr 1, 2010 6:05:33 PM
YMMV. I actually like getting these notes. I think it’s best not to invest it with too much significance, though. My impression is that going to full committee means that one articles editor liked your article and as a result it will be voted on by the full group. If each articles editor selects as many articles as there are slots, that means your odds of acceptance are low (and my limited experience so far confirms this).
But I appreciate knowing that the article has actually been read, and that a yes/no decision will come on X day at Y time.
Posted by: Bruce Boyden | Apr 1, 2010 4:53:51 PM