One might think that students can’t beat a real peer-review process, but that might not be true. writes ATL
Here’s the introduction to their piece.
A peer-reviewed publication is one of the cornerstones of an academic portfolio throughout higher education, but when it comes to the legal field, law professors are expected to secure their credentials primarily at the whim of a collection of 2Ls and 3Ls. All the cascading effects of legal scholarship from shaping the narrative of academic critique to indirectly influencing the job market are coming off the research instincts of students who only got their first Westlaw password 18 months ago.
But is it possible that student-run journals actually turn out better scholarship than the publications ostensibly edited by “peers”? That’s the theory proposed by Professor Jeff Kosseff, a Naval Academy law professor who gets to straddle the worlds of traditional undergraduate academia and legal scholarship giving him a unique perspective on the pros and cons of each method
Are Law School Journals Really Better Than Peer-Reviewed Academic Journals?
