Law Commons^™

Ending Law Review Link Rot: A Plea For Adopting Doi, Valeri Craigle, Aaron Retteen, Benjamin Keele

Utah Law Faculty Scholarship

As librarians, we do a fair amount of research online for ourselves and the faculty and students we serve. As researchers, we know that there is nothing more frustrating than encountering a dead link to a much-needed article, particularly when there are deadlines to meet. Dead links (link/ reference rot) can be a particularly frequent occurrence for law review articles because the law review societies that publish them have not yet adopted standards for preserving online access to them, particularly the adoption of a standard for implementing persistent URLs.

This Practical Insight is a plea to law reviews and law …

Law Review Cite Checking, Heather Simmons, Jason Tubinis

Presentations

Bluebook and cite checking for law review, presented by the law library. This session is only for members of the Georgia Law Review, the Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law, and the Journal of Intellectual Property Law.

Law Review Cite Checking, Jason Tubinis, Heather Simmons

Presentations

Bluebook and cite checking for law review, presented by the law library. This session is only for members of the Georgia Law Review, the Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law, and the Journal of Intellectual Property Law.

Law 'Reviews'? The Changing Roles Of Law Schools And The Publications They Sponsor, Leslie Francis

Utah Law Faculty Scholarship

The current structure of law reviews is deeply problematic. It does not serve students, law faculty, or legal scholarship very well. There is much to learn from the early development and changes in law reviews over the years to inform law schools as they reevaluate the role of their journals in the education they provide their students and in the lives of their faculty.

Law Review Correspondence: Better Read Than Dead?, Erik M. Jensen

Faculty Publications

These essays were part of a mini-symposium, “Of Correspondence and Commentary,” published by the Connecticut Law Review. At the time, a number of prominent law reviews had begun to publish “correspondence,” shorter pieces generally commenting on work published in the reviews. Whatever they were called, however, these pieces looked an awful lot like articles, complete with footnotes, titles with colons, and other law-review-type stuff. The author used the creation of correspondence sections to ruminate on the nature of legal scholarship, as published in student-edited law reviews, and in particular to wonder whether authors were using correspondence sections as backdoor ways …