I agree that a promise not to shop up doesn't have an effect one way or the other. The main benefit to the law review is certainty -- knowing that if we make an offer, the author will accept. The only time I could see this making a difference (for me) is if the Articles Editors are facing an quickly approaching slating deadline, and if we need to immediately pick and slot an final article for the issue we are assembling. But even then, I can't see it having an effect. Having read a lot of articles this year already, there are no two good articles that have interchangeable on their merits to me. So I think my preference would always be based on my view of the merits. If that happens to be the "no shopping" article, then I would have picked it anyway. If the one I prefer is not the "no shopping" article, then I have the certainty of the "no shopping" article in my back pocket should the article I prefered not accept the offer. In no event would a promise not to shop convince me to publish an article I was otherwise opposed to.

I respectfully disagree with another point Heidi makes -- namely, that an article that is posted on SSRN and gets a high number of hits might be more attractive because that demonstrates there is a lot of interest in the article. My mind is usually already made up by reading the article itself, and in no event would "high interest" convince me to publish something I didn't feel was strong already. Perhaps, if I was already in favor of publishing something, high interest might help me sell the article to other Articles Editors who might no be so convinced. My concern is that interest does not always correlate to quality. An article might get a lot of hits because it is highly controversial, but its arguments might not be very well supported.

For me, I don't know whether any kind of "pitch" works at all. For example, nost professors submit cover letters to accompany their article, and those letters summarize why their article is important and how it fits into the literature in that area of law. But usually I only have a stack of articles with me, and I don't see the cover letter (which is still in the law review office) until I'm trying to locate the professor's contact information. So the first (and usually only) thing I see before making a decision is the text of the article itself.

With regard to the article itself: the primary quality I look for in an article is how well it addresses counter-arguments. I try to read articles from the perspective of someone who is skeptical of every statement the author makes and then test how well the author’s reasoning holds up. The articles that wow me are the ones that keep me along for the ride no matter how hard I try to spot a weak point in the author’s logic. My biggest fear is agreeing to publish that can easily be torn apart, so when I see an article that ignores the counter-arguments that pop into my head it makes me very nervous about what experts in that particular area of law will think. I mention this because I’m surprised how many submissions don’t address counter-arguments well (if at all). I can definitely weed a lot of articles out that way.

Craig Countryman
Articles Editor, UCLA Law Review

Nothing like listening to articles editors tell lawyers with far more experience than them how to attract their interest. At least they will be starting clerkships or associate positions next year.

The promise not to shop up probably won’t have too much impact at high-ranking schools, because they know that there isn’t too much of a chance the article going higher (as compared to lower-ranked schools), and most articles editors have not been doing this long enough to see such an offer as the act of a truly good-hearted person who isn’t a class-conscious dweeb.

Anyway, in my view (not being a professor), the things that have articles published that were not on Volokh-esque trendy subjects have been 1) well-crafted cover letters – e.g. letters that take over three hours to write; and 2) having your article delivered by someone on the staff or a professor. See, despite the fact that people 1) constantly talk about the importance of "connections"; and 2) deny that "connections" will make a "lesser" article or person get accepted -- skillfully using your contacts will break through all of the articles' editors haughtiness.

(By, Volokh-esque, I, of course, refer to the Kozinski/Volkh paradigm that he introduces in the forward to his EV’s book on legal writing: write about trendy and “interesting” things and not boring (yet more useful to practitioners) things.)