I’ve been asked twice in the last two submission cycles to provide an “external peer review” for a law journal where many of us would be thrilled to publish.
I’ve noticed some similarities in the questions I’ve been asked each time. I pass them along here in generic form. Many of us wonder what happens when our submissions go out for review. Here’s a slice of insight:
- Is the Article’s account of the X [the state of the law/the development of the law] accurate and thorough?
- Does the Article’s discussion of Y [interesting particular problem/question/focus that the author has] make a significant contribution to the scholarship in the field?
- Is the Article’s evaluation of the problem identified by the author compelling compelling?
- Does the Article make a persuasive case for adopting the normative solution the author advances?
These are good questions that could also help students who might be assigned to read a law review article for a class, among other scenarios.
Sharing this info FWIW!
