SSRN Home Search and Download Papers Browse Abstract and Paper Submission Subscribe to Networks View Briefcase Top Papers Top Authors Top Institutions

 

Abstract

 
 

Citations (1)

Beta

 


 



Editing

Carol Sanger
Columbia Law School



Georgetown Law Journal, Vol. 82, p. 513, 1993

Abstract:     
We are all familiar with the process. At its best, law review editing, like editing elsewhere in the academic and literary worlds, results in a piece improved in style, structure, and content. Too often, however, law review articles are not so much improved as simply changed, sometimes hundreds of times within a single manuscript.

My purpose here is not to complain line by line about various dissatisfactions with the editing of my little review. I accept that authors, like teenagers convinced the world is focused on their every imperfection, are more aware of perceived deficiencies in an article than any reader is likely to be. Nonetheless, many of us have spent many hours resuscitating sentences, paragraphs, lines of argument, and sometimes whole manuscripts that have been edited nearly to death. What I want to discuss is why this sort of thing happens so regularly and what we might do about it.

Keywords: editing, law review, student, scholarship, journals, courts, academy

Accepted Paper Series

Date posted: December 20, 2006 ; Last revised: December 20, 2006

Suggested Citation

Sanger, Carol, Editing. Georgetown Law Journal, Vol. 82, p. 513, 1993. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=952543


Export to: Export Citation What's this?

Contact Information

Carol Sanger (Contact Author)
Columbia Law School ( email )
435 West 116th Street
New York, NY 10027
United States
212-854-5478 (Phone)
212-854-7946 (Fax)
Feedback to SSRN (Beta)


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 123
Downloads: 41
Citations: 1

© 2010 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright
This page was served by apollob 1 in 0.281 seconds.