In Section III of the questionnaire, we asked respondents to use 7-point Likert type scales (1 = strongly disagree, 4 = neutral, 7 = strongly agree) to evaluate 8 factors that may impair law reviews' ability to select and edit articles. (195) Table 3 and Figure 1 below summarize the results.
For each group, the most frequent response was that students should select and edit articles, but should be required to consult with faculty when making these decisions.
Accordingly, many judges and attorneys have substantially less knowledge about how law reviews select and edit articles, and the problems that law reviews face than law professors and student editors.
Blind, peer reviews would help educate student editors about how to select and edit articles and would increase law faculty's involvement with law reviews.
(207.) Because several attorneys and judges have criticized law reviews for publishing too many articles that are irrelevant to their needs and because law professors write most law review articles and student editors select and edit articles, we expected attorneys and judges to disagree most strongly with this statement.
(6) Law review members should receive more training on how to select and edit articles. (7) The Bluebook system of citation should be replaced with a simpler set of citation rules.