Forthcoming Article - The Lag in Open Access Law Publishing
In the forthcoming issue of the Lewis & Clark Law Review, University of Pittsburgh School of Law professor Michael Madison has an article entitled The Idea of the Law Review : Scholarship, Prestige, and Open Access.
From the full text of the article:
"Some scientific journals and academic scientists have taken steps along the open access path. By and large, academic lawyers have not. Yet asking why law reviews haven’t yet joined their scientific counterparts (the nominal premise of this symposium) may put the proverbial cart before the horse. To ask about open access publishing for any scholarly domain is to ask about the very idea of scholarship in that domain. Open access for law reviews really invites a hard look at law reviews and legal scholarship in general. Instead of talking about the future of law review publishing, then, I want to talk a bit about its past. Law reviews and legal scholars have gotten along acceptably with the current system for well over a century. For them, the system has worked pretty well. The question isn’t so much why law reviews haven’t embraced change. The question for law reviews, as it might be for any scholarly institution, is why they should."
(... )
" 'Open Access' in this context really requires investigating 'The Idea of the Law Review.' There is a concept of 'the law review' that law professors have carried around in their heads, more or less consistently, for decades. I need to talk about what that is before I can talk about whether open access for law reviews is a good thing, why the reviews are reluctant to go down that path, and ultimately how to think about open access in general."
The article was presented in March 2006 at a Symposium on Open Access Publishing and the Future of Legal Scholarship at the Lewis & Clark Law School (Portland, Oregon). The entire event is available as a podcast.
All the articles coming out of the Symposium will be published in the forthcoming issue of the Lewis & Clark Law Review.
The Law School's Boley Library has prepared some background resources on open access publishing.
From the full text of the article:
"Some scientific journals and academic scientists have taken steps along the open access path. By and large, academic lawyers have not. Yet asking why law reviews haven’t yet joined their scientific counterparts (the nominal premise of this symposium) may put the proverbial cart before the horse. To ask about open access publishing for any scholarly domain is to ask about the very idea of scholarship in that domain. Open access for law reviews really invites a hard look at law reviews and legal scholarship in general. Instead of talking about the future of law review publishing, then, I want to talk a bit about its past. Law reviews and legal scholars have gotten along acceptably with the current system for well over a century. For them, the system has worked pretty well. The question isn’t so much why law reviews haven’t embraced change. The question for law reviews, as it might be for any scholarly institution, is why they should."
(... )
" 'Open Access' in this context really requires investigating 'The Idea of the Law Review.' There is a concept of 'the law review' that law professors have carried around in their heads, more or less consistently, for decades. I need to talk about what that is before I can talk about whether open access for law reviews is a good thing, why the reviews are reluctant to go down that path, and ultimately how to think about open access in general."
The article was presented in March 2006 at a Symposium on Open Access Publishing and the Future of Legal Scholarship at the Lewis & Clark Law School (Portland, Oregon). The entire event is available as a podcast.
All the articles coming out of the Symposium will be published in the forthcoming issue of the Lewis & Clark Law Review.
The Law School's Boley Library has prepared some background resources on open access publishing.
Labels: legal research and writing, open access
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home