Abstract
Numerous articles have been written about the strengths and weaknesses of student-run law reviews - an issue has garnered the attention of many prominent and influential legal scholars. Recent articles provide some insight into the factors that influence the evaluation of submissions and selection of articles for publication. However, they primarily make descriptive rather than normative claims. They do not answer the key questions that have remained unanswered since the establishment of student-run law reviews: Is there a low-cost way to improve the institution of student-run law reviews? Is there a better way for students to evaluate articles?
This Article suggests answers to these important questions and contributes to the existing body of scholarship on student-run law reviews by suggesting improved techniques of article evaluation, as well as methods by which to gague the potential for evaluator bias. In addition, this article makes clear that there are many opportunities to decrease the potential for bias in the article evaluation process and calls for retraining on an institutional level.
Recommended Citation
Rachel J. Anderson,
From Imperial Scholar to Imperial Student: Minimizing Bias in Article Evaluation,
20 Hastings Women's L.J. 197
(2009).
Available at: https://repository.uclawsf.edu/hwlj/vol20/iss2/4