Read Full Article (PDF)
Legal academia’s system of utilizing student-run journals for publication has its downsides. Professors and students both have shared frustrations in the editing process. While editorial processes differ by journal, often there are issues with lack of mutual understanding in the scope of what should be edited, the role of the student in the editing process, and what level of deference should be provided to author discretion.
To remedy these downsides, this article proposes a framework which is borrowed from the world of appellate procedure, based on the proposition that the relationship between trial judges and appellate judges resembles the relationship between authors and student editors. Specifically, this article suggests that student editors should use standards of review, similar to those used by appellate judges when reviewing trial judges’ decisions, to guide their editorial decisions. Implementing additional tools—specifically, burdens of proof and reasoned explanations—could further improve the editorial process by guiding student editors to fewer but more helpful edits.
Dora W. Klein *
* Professor of Law, St. Mary’s University School of Law.