From Imperial Scholar to Imperial Student: Minimizing Bias in Article Evaluation by Law Reviews

Abstract

This Article is intended to serve as a roadmap for law professors and law review editors alike in their efforts to find a better way for students to evaluate articles. Further, this Article aims to offer low-cost ways to improve the institution of student-run law reviews by strengthening editors' evaluation skills and processes. This Article is divided into three main parts. Part II of this Article, Manifestations of Systemic Bias, develops a theory of the safe-dissent continuum and employs this theory to determine whether there is empirical support for claims of bias in article evaluation and the legal discourse. Part III of this Article, Origins and the Tenacious Nature of Systemic Bias, utilizes insights from economic theory to examine some sources of and explanations for the persistence of systemic bias in article evaluation by law reviews. Part IV of this Article, The Article Evaluation Tool Box, identifies some ways to mitigate the potential for individual and systemic bias in the law review article evaluation process.

Keywords: legal scholarship, law review, legal education, critical race theory, law and economics, rhetoric and reading theory, bias, dissent, evaluation