The time between law review article selection cycles offers a much-needed respite for editors and authors from the hustle and bustle of submission season. But if you’re like so many legal scholars, you probably also get the itch to begin working on your next manuscript…
With so many possible article topics to pursue, how can you effectively weigh your options and know when you’ve landed on the right one?
At Scholastica, we’ve supported hundreds of law reviews that use our software, and over the years we’ve periodically reached out to e-boards to ask them to share article-selection insights. In this blog post, we’re rounding up some of the top advice we’ve gotten from law editors on crafting a publication-worthy piece in response to author FAQs.
Table of Contents
- How important is the timeliness of my law article topic?
- Should I have a personal connection to my law review article topic?
- How can I ensure my law review article topic is original?
- What is a preemption check exactly, and how can I conduct a good one?
- What are common reasons editors reject law review articles?
- What if my law review article argument has limitations?
- Can my law review article topic be empirical?
- How do law editors evaluate articles on topics they aren’t familiar with?
- Putting it all together (submission checklist)
1. How important is the timeliness of my law article topic?
In short, writing about a timely topic is incredibly important because law editors seek articles with the potential to have real-world impact, rather than highly esoteric or theoretical pieces. However, make sure your piece isn’t too time-sensitive where it may quickly lose relevance, and don’t try to force topical associations where they are tenuous.
Editors are seeking articles on developing or unresolved issues that are likely to be cited and contribute to current conversations that move the law. Examples include articles on:
- An emerging area of law, such as new developments in artificial intelligence governance or constitutional challenges to new technologies
- Pending legislation, such as developing state-level data center moratoriums or class action lawsuits on issues like expanding digital surveillance
- New takes on topical debates, such as circuit splits, state responses to recent Supreme Court rulings, and the possible ramifications of those decisions.
However, while writing about hot-button issues can help you stand out, you should also ensure your article isn’t overly time-sensitive. For example, articles predicting the outcomes of pending executive orders or SCOTUS decisions have limited lifespans if they’re too narrowly focused.
As former Capital University Law Review editor Lindsay Miller explained, “discuss matters that are timely, topical, and trendy” but “be sure to not discuss things that will go out of date tomorrow, as this will likely result in more hesitation from a journal.”
2. Should I have a personal connection to my law review article topic?
In short, it’s not necessary, but it can help your piece stand out. We’ve heard from outgoing law review e-boards that they’re giving greater weight to articles when the author has a meaningful relationship to the topic at hand, whether from personal experience or through extensive study.
For example, former Minnesota Journal of Law & Inequality editor Jen Davison encouraged authors to indicate how they connect to their article topic early in their abstract.
“It would seem inauthentic for me, a law student, to write an article about what it’s like to train tigers for 40 years. I haven’t done it! If I want to write that article, I should explain how I’m situated in relation to the content,” said Davison. “Even better, I should write articles that connect to my life and professional experiences so that you can read the authenticity of my connection to my content.”
Davison added that authors should be mindful not to speak on behalf of marginalized voices. “This is particularly important as we collectively recognize the power of diverse voices in scholarship and the disservice we may do to the world of readers when homogenous voices write scholarship on behalf of diverse voices.”
3. How can I ensure my law review article topic is original?
First, give yourself room to brainstorm relevant topics that you feel confident you could lend new insights to and that you would enjoy digging into (an author’s enthusiasm, or lack thereof, for their subject matter tends to show!). From there, probe your ideas to determine the extent to which you’d be echoing similar opinions to others in an already crowded debate versus revealing gaps in current legal discourse and theory. Aim to fill a gap! Once you’ve landed on what you believe to be a novel thesis, conduct a preemption check to be sure.
For example, if you practice IP law and you’ve been researching or working on cases related to training data copyright, you might start out thinking about writing an article on the fair use debate. That’s certainly a timely topic! However, it’s also a well-trodden path at this point. To place in a Top-100 law review, you probably don’t want to write the 51st article arguing “training is (or isn’t) fair use.” You want to identify a legal question that hasn’t yet been thoroughly explored.
Like what? You might notice that many authors have focused on the relationship between copyright owners and AI companies. However, far fewer examine the downstream consequences of training data copyright for institutions or markets. There are some original ideas to mine there! Don’t be afraid to be the first to raise an argument if you’re confident in its merit.
Former UIC John Marshall Law Review editor Polatip Subanajouy encouraged authors not to shy away from challenging the status quo where they can make a compelling case for a new theory or radically different viewpoint.
“You may have to spend more time drawing analogies to other areas of law to support your claims. Don’t be discouraged, however, from being the maverick. It’s more challenging, but, ultimately, law review is the search for truth in the legal profession in its purest form,” said Subanajouy. “If you see something that is true before its time, and you fight for it, the truth will come out eventually, and you could become the giant on whose shoulders future generations stand.”
4. What is a preemption check exactly, and how can I conduct a good one?
As explained in this Pritzker Legal Research Center guide, a preemption check is a search you conduct of the legal literature and case law to ensure that no other author has already published an article with a similar thesis and focus to yours, as well as to verify that your thesis hasn’t been rendered moot by new statutes or court rulings.
The goal isn’t necessarily to find an article on the same general subject as yours. It’s to answer a more specific question: Has someone already made my central argument?
This distinction is important. For example:
- Not preempted: You’re writing about copyright and AI training data, and you find dozens of articles on the topic. None of them propose the evidentiary framework you’re developing.
- Potentially preempted: You find a recent article with the same thesis, relying on the same cases, reaching the same conclusion, and proposing a very similar solution.
To conduct a thorough preemption check, search multiple legal databases to look for existing and forthcoming pieces in your topic area, such as HeinOnline and Lexis for recently published articles and legal commentary, SSRN for working papers, and Google Scholar for interdisciplinary research. And be sure to try different combinations of search terms to surface varied potentially related content. For example, don’t just search “AI copyright.” Try related terms like “large language models fair use” or “machine learning training infringement.”
5. What are common reasons editors reject law review articles?
If we had to sum up the reasons we’ve heard in three words, we’d say it’s primarily due to a lack of publication: functionality, form, or fit. If your article isn’t apparently useful, if it doesn’t follow a law review’s conventions for article structure (especially citations!), or if it doesn’t fall within the realm of a journal’s aims and scope, you’re likely to face rejection. Let’s break it down…
Lack of functionality:
We’ve discussed the importance of writing on timely topics. It’s also critical that the connections you draw between your article and current matters of the law are tangible. As noted by former University of Toledo Law Review editor Jesse Scott, “I’ve rejected pieces that were well written and raised good points but didn’t really matter to anyone. Unfortunately, because of limited space, these aren’t things we can publish.”
Research on theoretical or obscure areas of the law can be interesting, but if your piece essentially amounts to a thought experiment without practical case law or legislative applications, you may struggle to find a home for it.
Lack of form:
While it may seem inconsequential or trivial to editors’ assessment of the quality of your thesis and writing, the truth is article formatting matters a lot in law review submissions.
In a new tip we just received for law authors for this piece, former editor of the Federal Circuit Bar Journal, Andrew Allen, noted that editors specifically look at “the sophistication of the article’s writing and structure and the article’s proficient use of citations and source materials.”
Allen added that editors also check the length of the article during initial desk assessment, particularly to see if it far exceeds the journal’s word limit, as well as “whether offering the author publication would present an undue burden on our journal members from a substantiation standpoint (i.e., is there a plethora of missing footnotes or completely inaccurate footnotes).”
The punchline: ensure your piece adheres to the requirements of the law reviews you’re submitting to and that you have adequate and accurate citations so law editors don’t write it off because it looks like a copyediting and proofing nightmare.
Lack of fit:
Finally, ensure you’re only submitting your article to relevant law reviews. While submissions may feel like a numbers game, in truth, it really is about quality over quantity. Take the time to identify and target journals your piece is particularly well-suited to. For example, Allen said, “we look for preemption issues regarding the topic discussed as well as whether the article presents an analysis and conclusion that falls squarely within our journal’s jurisdiction (the Federal Circuit).”
6. What if my law review article argument has limitations?
What argument doesn’t have limitations? See where we’re going…
In short, don’t be afraid to acknowledge limitations to your piece and take the opportunity to frame those caveats as avenues for further research. Doing so will demonstrate intellectual honesty and that you’ve thought critically about your own proposal. Just be sure to distinguish between limitations and fatal flaws. The latter would undermine your argument entirely.
For example, if your proposal depends on technology that doesn’t exist or conflicts directly with binding Supreme Court precedent without offering a way to reconcile that conflict, you’ve encountered a “fatal flaw.”
Former Vanderbilt Law Review editor Nathan Campbell advised that while authors may be wary of addressing limitations to their piece because they worry it will dilute their argument, the truth is it will only make it stronger.
“It’s easy for academics (of all fields) to ignore or assume away real-world limitations to their arguments or solutions. Yet, my peers (including myself) value pieces that engage with those limitations, even if they are not able to truly resolve them (it would be irrational to require resolution of the hard issues),” Campbell explained.
7. Can my law review article topic be empirical?
Absolutely! In recent years, we’ve heard from law review editors that they’ve seen a rise in pieces based on empirical research and that they are open to them. The one caveat being that law students may not be familiar with evaluating data analysis, so be sure to explain your methodology clearly and succinctly and provide adequate citations to show how your work connects to existing scholarship. Also, ensure that the objective of your piece is to answer a legal question, not just present interesting findings.
In Scholastica’s 2024 “Advice from Outgoing Law Review Editors” blog post, an editor who asked to remain anonymous said, “The volume of empirical articles on offer continues to grow. They can add value and variety to law reviews but authors should strive to present their findings in ways that an average legal reader can comprehend, understanding that they may not be familiar with statistical analysis papers.”
8. How do law editors evaluate articles on topics they aren’t familiar with?
The truth is, law editors may struggle to grasp the thesis or methodology of articles on experimental or highly specialized subject areas. For that reason, it’s critical that you provide adequate context for your chosen topic and explain how your article adds value to the field (you may notice that “context” is becoming a theme here!).
We’ve heard from editors time and again that they appreciate when authors outline where they feel their article contributes to legal discourse, which makes screening submissions much more straightforward for busy students still learning about all aspects of the law.
As former Boston University Law Review editor Collin Grier explained, “it is really helpful to editors reviewing articles when you point out where you think your article adds value in the cover letter.”
Grier added, “obviously, authors know a lot more about their substantive areas than editors do. So being direct about the value you’re adding goes a long way to convincing us to select your article!”
Putting it all together (submission checklist)
We hope you’ve found these answers to FAQs on formulating a compelling law review article helpful! To wrap it up, here’s a high-level checklist of questions to ask yourself before you start writing. If you answer “no” or “I’m not sure” to any of these, it’s a sign you may need to flesh out your argument further or consider alternate topic angles:
- Is the issue timely but likely to remain relevant through publication?
- Have I identified a genuine gap in the literature?
- Can I explain my thesis in one sentence?
- Have I completed a preemption check?
- Does the topic have practical implications?
- Can I clearly articulate why this article matters?
You can use these tips not only to identify an attention-grabbing article topic but also to get ahead of common editor objections and craft a more competitive piece.
Happy legal writing!
Update Note: This post was originally published on the 18th of May 2022 and updated on the 10th of July 2026.
