DePaul
Journal for Social Justice
PEER
REVIEW
"The result of the system of scholarly publication in law is that too many articles are too long, too dull, and too heavily annotated... Worse is the effect of these characteristics of law reviews in marginalizing... articles that criticize judicial decisions or, more constructively, discern new directions in law. Such articles are of great value to the profession, including its judicial branch, but they are becoming rare."
Increasingly, lawyers, judges and interdisciplinary practitioners feel that traditional law reviews and journals do not address their need to understand doctrinal evolution and its application to the law-as-applied. Particularly in public interest areas, articles can be too lengthy or opaque and lacking a sense of advocacy that might provide public interest practitioners with any new or insightful ideas. Many find current law reviews abstract and inaccessible to the practical realities and issues of their practice.
The DePaul Journal for Social Justice responds to this need by providing relatively short, engaging, interdisciplinary articles that reflect practitioners' experiences and values. The goal is to allow authors to take an advocate's position and to do so through the narratives of their individual legal experiences. On one hand, that will sometimes mean a less thoroughly-cited recitation of all legal and historical antecedents. On the other hand, it will mean a joinder of the law and practice in a way that should be very meaningful to practitioners in the same discipline, students who seek to understand public interest lawyering, judges who solicit fresh approaches to legal gridlock, and in some cases, a manual for building competence in a particular field.
However, as Judge Posner stated in the same article, this practical interdisciplinary approach can suffer for academic rigor. In fact, the Journal expects that the focal points of all articles will be more doctrinally and factually sound and comprehensive, even if all sides of an issue are not toroughly explored in the manner of the "impartial" law review article. This need for accuracy is one reason the DePaul Journal for Social Justice is peer reviewed. Before any article is accepted for publication, one or more members of the Peer Review Board offer their advice and criticism to the Journal's Editorial Board. The Editorial Board, in turn, can and has rejected articles for failing peer review.
The Peer Review Board is composed of 15 members of the DePaul College of Law faculty and 10 practitioners with legal expertise in a wide range of areas. The Journal continues to seek additional peer reviewers from outside the DePaul and Chicago legal communities. If you are interested in becoming a peer reviewer for the Journal for Social Justice, please email the Journal.
"The result of the system of scholarly publication in law is that too many articles are too long, too dull, and too heavily annotated... Worse is the effect of these characteristics of law reviews in marginalizing... articles that criticize judicial decisions or, more constructively, discern new directions in law. Such articles are of great value to the profession, including its judicial branch, but they are becoming rare."
-- Judge Richard A.
Posner, "Against the Law Reviews," Legal Affairs, Dec. 2004.
Increasingly, lawyers, judges and interdisciplinary practitioners feel that traditional law reviews and journals do not address their need to understand doctrinal evolution and its application to the law-as-applied. Particularly in public interest areas, articles can be too lengthy or opaque and lacking a sense of advocacy that might provide public interest practitioners with any new or insightful ideas. Many find current law reviews abstract and inaccessible to the practical realities and issues of their practice.
The DePaul Journal for Social Justice responds to this need by providing relatively short, engaging, interdisciplinary articles that reflect practitioners' experiences and values. The goal is to allow authors to take an advocate's position and to do so through the narratives of their individual legal experiences. On one hand, that will sometimes mean a less thoroughly-cited recitation of all legal and historical antecedents. On the other hand, it will mean a joinder of the law and practice in a way that should be very meaningful to practitioners in the same discipline, students who seek to understand public interest lawyering, judges who solicit fresh approaches to legal gridlock, and in some cases, a manual for building competence in a particular field.
However, as Judge Posner stated in the same article, this practical interdisciplinary approach can suffer for academic rigor. In fact, the Journal expects that the focal points of all articles will be more doctrinally and factually sound and comprehensive, even if all sides of an issue are not toroughly explored in the manner of the "impartial" law review article. This need for accuracy is one reason the DePaul Journal for Social Justice is peer reviewed. Before any article is accepted for publication, one or more members of the Peer Review Board offer their advice and criticism to the Journal's Editorial Board. The Editorial Board, in turn, can and has rejected articles for failing peer review.
The Peer Review Board is composed of 15 members of the DePaul College of Law faculty and 10 practitioners with legal expertise in a wide range of areas. The Journal continues to seek additional peer reviewers from outside the DePaul and Chicago legal communities. If you are interested in becoming a peer reviewer for the Journal for Social Justice, please email the Journal.