I’ve just accepted, with great pleasure, the NYU Law Review‘s offer to publish my Parent-Child Speech and Child Custody Speech Restrictions article; but fortunately I still have plenty of time to improve the piece.
To that end, let me ask our readers — and in particular a very small sliver of our readers — an unusual question: If you were one of the articles editors who considered the article, do you have any suggestions for improvement? Can you point to parts that you thought were unpersuasive, poorly written, or unnecessary? Were there some counterarguments that you think I could have dealt with better? Can you pass along any objections that you may have heard from your colleagues?
If some readers saw certain flaws in the article, I’m sure that other readers will see the same flaws. Right now I can still correct those flaws, or respond to the counterarguments I need to respond to; better do that now, before the article is in print.
I should stress that my only goal here is to improve the article. A couple of journals gave me offers; another expressed interest; about half a dozen rejected it; others didn’t respond; that’s entirely par for the course — if you folks didn’t like the article, I can perfectly well understand that. Most of my articles, and I’d wager most of other law professors’ articles, get rejected by lots of places even if they get accepted by other comparably ranked places. That’s just fine. I’d simply like to take advantage of people’s criticisms now, when it can still do the article some good.
Please feel free to respond anonymously; please also feel free to respond either in the comments or by e-mail (volokh at law.ucla.edu). Thanks in advance for your help!
Comments are closed.