Posted by Eugene Volokh:
Some Advice for Law Review Editors on Dealing with Authors,
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_04_05-2009_04_11.shtml#1238909018
from Arpan Sura of the William & Mary Law Review:
Volume 51 Leads,
Arps here. You already know how to select articles. But being a
good LAE [Lead Articles Editor -- the "lead" editor on an article
that coordinates the editing process and communicates with the
author] requires you to deal with authors in a professional,
helpful, and deferential way. It's critical because authors
remember our customer service. Here, I'll give you some unsolicited
advice on how to do that. Don't read this until your first Lead
Edit (this summer).
Before reading further, consult at Eugene Volokh's general advice:
[1]http://volokh.com/posts/1222367027.shtml. I would stress point 1
-- You have to balance two considerations: getting the right result
and showing appropriate deference.
When you write your First Author Review, you will have two tasks.
1. Explanatory: You will explain the changes the citechecker, AE, and
LAE made to the piece.
1. This is not limited to the list of changes you will get after
the Executive Edit.
2. And it's not limited to the redline changes.
3. If your letter explains only these changes, your letter is
woefully incomplete.
2. Prescriptive: You will make stylistic and substantive
recommendations to the piece. In everything you do, follow this
golden rule. This is the author's work, and the author is
presumptively right. You have the burden to convince the author to
change his or her piece. This means you must be persuasive in your
author review letters.
1. Explanatory: The is the most important. Authors are very
protective of their work. Even fixing contractions can draw an
author's ire. (And they have). So, when you send your author
letter, don't assume that your changes are self-evidently correct.
Explain (1) what you did and (2) why you did it. Obviously you
should not explain every piddling edit, like a short-form. We're
talking about major edits here.
When explaining why you made a change, citing "Lavender Book Rule
x.x" [the "Lavender Book" is our internal editing and style manual]
is not good enough. That's not persuasive because the author
doesn't care about the Lavender Book. Also unpersuasive is "I
changed this sentence to make things clearer." That's conclusory.
If you feel strongly enough about a change, explain the reasoning
behind the change. Citing the Bluebook, however, is more persuasive
on its own because it's a universal guide.
When adding authority, you don't have to explain adding ids or
citations to sources already included. But when you add new
sources, you have an absolute duty to explain what you added and
why. Authors can get very very upset when you add new sources they
haven't included. Some consider it a violation of academic
integrity. So, in your letter, tell them that you recommend that
add authority for a certain proposition.
2. Prescriptive
a. Non-substantive recommendations: Often, you will suggest the
author make non-substantive changes. Here are some common
suggestions you will have to make. The bracketed parts are your
suggestions.
* Add a roadmap. {Here's what I recommend.}
* Add an abstract. {You might say this.}
* Add authority to this proposition. {Here's the sources our
citecheckers found on point.}
* Add better authority for this proposition {Give us a print
citation instead of Wikipedia.}
* Author is conclusory {This point struck me as non-obvious. Could
you unpack? This is what I thought you were trying to say.}
* A new case comes out after citechecking that hurts/helps the
article. {I found some brand new cases on point. Do you want to
add it?}
* This table or figure did not seem very clear. {Here's some
formatting changes I think will make it clearer.}
b. Substantive Recommendations: Sometimes, you will see a glaring
hole in the author's argument. You will want to tell the author to
fix it. This is okay. Just make sure you're right and deferential.
This will require a little research on your part but the author
will truly appreciate it. It goes without saying: don't fix the
substantive problem by editing the manuscript. You want the author
to do this himself.
Coda: I'm here to give advice and not impose. I know Volume 50
would have appreciated this advice. However, Volume 49 failed to
tell us how to deal with authors and consequently, some authors
yelled at us. I've attached some successful author reviews (in the
sense that the authors commended me on them) as templates.
Institutional knowledge is important for the law review and we
should pass it along when we can. Let me know if you've got
questions.
I think this is generally very good advice, and I thought I'd pass it
along, in a law review editor's own words.
References
1. http://volokh.com/posts/1222367027.shtml
_______________________________________________
Volokh mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.powerblogs.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/volokh
