Re: L.Rev (C) Release

On 10/29/99, John Kasdan <kasdan[_at_]columbia.edu> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 27 Oct 1999, Richard A. Schafer <schafer[_at_]mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
> >
> > Although I can't speak for that particular journal, as a former journal
> > editor I can make some guesses:
> >
> > 1. Journals really want to be the first to publish articles. We
> > would refuse out of hand any submission that had ever been
> > published elsewhere, including on a website. It's important to
> > the journal's reputation (or so we're taught to believe) that
> > they only publish first-publication materials. Why allow
>
> Well, that's going to become increasingly problematic. Virtually all
> pieces that get published in law reviews first exist as working
> papers. In the old days those were circulated through private
> networks. But now with the Soc. Sci. Research Network (www.ssrn.com)
> working papers are broadly available on the web. And a quick glance
> shows that the law reviews at Columbia, U. of Chi., U. Mich. and
> Penn. are all planning to publish pieces that have appeared in working
> paper form on SSRN.
>
> > publication (even pre-publication) in non-English languages? I
> > suspect largely because a) no one ever translates law review
> > articles and b) foreign language journals are in competition
> > with English language journals.
>
> Did you mean "b) foreign language journals are NOT in competition
> with English language journals
>
> > 2. Actually, there *is* money in there. Our journal's contract with
> > Westlaw paid us for every hit on an article from our journal.
> > While not enough to raise a family on, we received significant
> > funds from this annually. So it's *very* important to be able
> > to get rights to republish the article on services like Lexis
> > and Westlaw.
>
> Good point. I suppose SSRN and my web site will reduce downloading
> fees. Well, as a general matter I think that West and Lexis shouldn't
> get the kind of rents they do on legal materials, and to the extent I
> am such a material, I don't feel too bad that they, and the law
> reviews with whom they contract, will get reduced fees.

I agree, except that I do not believe that this will result in reduced licensing (or, more appropriately, sublicense) fees to the print journals.

John Allison
<allisonj[_at_]mail.utexas.edu> Received on Fri Oct 29 1999 - 22:53:29 GMT