What Do U.S. Law Professors, Student Editors, Attorneys, and Judges Think about U.S. Law Reviews and the Need for Reform?

Abstract

We surveyed 1325 law professors, 338 student
editors, 215 attorneys, and 156 judges about their
beliefs about U.S. law reviews and the need for reforms.
Law reviews play a critical role in the law and legal
education in the U.S. They are also one of the best
means for social scientists to convey research about the
law to legal professionals. Law professors were
generally the most critical of law reviews and student
editors were usually the least critical. Respondents
identified several problems with law reviews. They
believed that law review articles are too long. Most
respondents also believed that U.S. law reviews have a
negative effect on law professors’ careers and that they
are not meeting the needs of attorneys and judges. The
vast majority of respondents indicated that reforms are
needed and that U.S. law reviews should implement
blind, peer reviews. We also discuss the significance of
our findings for the U.S. legal system and for social
scientists who study the law.