Administrative Note: Finals

The Colloquy is taking a brief respite for finals.  We will return next week with a piece by Marc Goldstein entitled Mitigating Dysfunctional Deference through Improvements in Board Composition and Board Effectiveness.  The article is part of our colloquy on whether corporate malfeasance is due, in part, to "dysfunctional deference" by board members to corporate management.  To read earlier pieces by Bernard S. Sharfman and Steven J. Toll, click here and here.

Administrative Note: Colloquy Pieces are Now Available on LEXIS

The Northwestern Law Review is pleased to announce that all Colloquy Essays and Posts are now available on LEXIS and continue to be available on WESTLAW.

Happy Memorial Day!  The Colloquy takes a break this week and will return next week with Professor Holning Lau's Essay entitled Human Rights and Globalization: Putting the Race to the Top in Perspective, which is a response to Professor David Law's article Globalization and the Future of Constitutional Rights, 102 Nw. U. L. Rev. (forthcoming 2008).  Click here to read Professor Law's article.

Administrative Note: Finals

The Colloquy is taking a brief respite for finals.  We will return next week with the first part of a two part piece by David S. Evans entitled Antitrust Issues Raised by the Emerging Global Internet Economy.

Administrative Note: New Editors

Spring is upon us again, and along with the rest of the Law Review, the Colloquy is in the process of transferring editorial control to the class of 2009.  Isaac Peterson, Melissa Whitehead, and Richard Kirkendall will be handing over control to three new editors:

Kristin Feeley, Senior Colloquy Editor, will be responsible for selection of the Colloquy's content and its overall production schedule. 

Jason Allen, Managing Colloquy Editor, will ensure that the editorial quality of all Colloquy pieces matches the quality of pieces found in the print Law Review. 

Brianne Straka, Executive Colloquy Editor, will handle Colloquy publication duties and act as the webmaster.

All submissions should be sent to Kristin, and all of the information in the Frequently Asked Questions still applies.  As always, the Colloquy focuses upon shorter essays on timely topics and we encourage your suggestions and submissions.

This year should provide for many interesting issues. Our colloquy on climate change will be ongoing.  In addition, we hope for timely scholarship resulting from high-profile Supreme Court cases, such as Danforth v. Minnesota and Spring/United Management v. Mendelsohn, that will produce a discussion like our recent five-part series on Bowles v. Russell.  Finally, we are interested in broadening the scope of the Colloquy by publishing new perspectives, such as a comparative or critical race theory, and by reaching out to authors who may not typically publish in American legal journals, including scholars in other disciplines or legal scholars from other nations.

Thanks for reading, and stay tuned—we have big plans for the next year.

Martin Luther King Day at Northwestern Law

All classes are cancelled Monday, January 21, in celebration of Martin Luther King Day.  Instead,  Northwestern Law features a number of discussions and presentations related to segregation.   The day’s events kick off with a mock Supreme Court oral argument of Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District, which involved a challenge by parents to the use of race-based criteria in apportioning students to public schools.  __ U.S. ___, 127 S.Ct. 2738 (2007) (link).   The Court’s plurality decision held that the Seattle and Jefferson County public school systems had used racial classifications in an unconstitutional manner. 

Editorial Note: Colloquy Summaries

Happy Columbus Day to all of our readers!  This week, we take a short respite from our brisk publication schedule to introduce a new feature to our young site.  All the colloquies appearing on this site, from the last year and going forward, can now be found on one convenient page.  This page briefly summarizes each colloquy, and provides direct links to each piece in the colloquy.  These "Prior Colloquies" are always available by following the link in the right-hand sidebar, or you can click here.

Enjoy, and thanks for reading!

--Isaac, Melissa, Rich, and the Colloquy staff

Administrative Note: Welcome Back!

Dear Colloquy Readers:

The end of the summer means the start of the academic year, and so we here at the Colloquy would like to welcome all of you back to your respective campuses.  In particular, we would like to congratulate and welcome the new staff members of the Law Review, who will be assisting us with keeping the Colloquy humming. Welcome, second years! We’re happy to have you on board.

In a few weeks we will celebrate the one-year anniversary of the Colloquy, which has seen great success thus far.  We have seen several provoking exchanges, on topics ranging from Supreme Court ideology to the operation of the recess appointment clause.  We look forward to starting our first full academic year with quality legal scholarship and discussion and we will be returning to our academic year schedule of publishing at least one piece per week.

We will publish a number of exciting pieces in the coming weeks, such as continued discussion of the Bowles v. Russell decision and a debate on the many versions of climate change legislation pending in Congress.  We also invite all of you who are interested in publishing on the Colloquy to please contact the Colloquy Editor.  We are always accepting submissions, and no proposal goes unheeded. 

We are thankful for your readership and your contributions.

--Isaac, Melissa, Rich, and the Colloquy Staff

Editor's Note: Colloquy Changes

We have decided to take a one-week hiatus from posting this week, which coincides with the first week of our Spring Break.  However, we would like to take this opportunity to make you, our loyal readers, aware of a few changes underway here at the Colloquy.

Administrative Note: New Editors

Spring is upon us again, and along with the rest of the Law Review, the Colloquy is in the process of transferring editorial control to the class of 2008.   Mark Spottswood, the first editor of the Colloquy, will soon be handing over control to a new team of three editors.   To fill his very big shoes, three people will be managing the site:  

Isaac Peterson, Senior Colloquy Editor, will be responsible for selection of the Colloquy's content and its overall production schedule. 

Melissa Whitehead, Managing Colloquy Editor, will ensure that the editorial quality of all Colloquy pieces matches the quality of pieces found in the print Law Review. 

Richard Kirkendall, Executive Colloquy Editor, will handle Colloquy publication duties, act as the Law Review's webmaster, and direct our digitization project. 

With three of us, we will be able to streamline the publications process of the Colloquy by dividing up some of the tasks for which Mark was solely responsible.   All submissions should still be sent to the Colloquy Editor email address, and all of the information in the Frequently Asked Questions still applies.  Thanks for reading, and stay tuned - we have big plans for the next year.

Frequently Asked Questions

[Last updated on October 21, 2008]

Q. How often does the Colloquy publish scholarship? 

A. At present, we publish one or two pieces per week. This rate may increase or decrease throughout the year, but we strive to maintain at least one piece per week year-round.

 

Q. What is the difference between Colloquy essays and essays in print journals?

A. The Colloquy focuses upon publishing timely pieces in a format that is accessible to expert as well as lay readers. As such, our essays are generally shorter than a traditional essay in a print journal. An ideal Colloquy essay is between 3,000-4,500 words (inclusive of footnotes), and is less heavily footnoted. This unique style not only makes our pieces more colloquial, it also allows for a quicker editing process. Thus, the time from submission to publication is generally much shorter than it would be for a print journal.

 

Q. Are colloquy pieces available on LEXIS or WESTLAW?

A. All pieces are currently available on WESTLAW and LEXIS.

 

Q. What is the format for citations to pieces published on the Colloquy?

A. The format for citing Colloquy essays is [Author], [Title], [Volume] Nw. U. L. Rev. Colloquy [First Page] ([Year]), [URL]. For example:

D.H. Kaye, Science Fiction and Shed DNA, 101 Nw. U. L. Rev. Colloquy 62 (2006), http://www.law.northwestern.edu/lawreview/colloquy/2006/7/.

For a Colloquy essay that is  reprinted in the print Law Review, the format is the same except that it also includes a parallel citation to the physical journal. For example:

David McGowan, What Tool Works Tells Us About Tailoring Patent Misuse Remedies,
102 Nw. U. L. Rev. 421 (2007); 101 Nw. U. L. Rev. Colloquy 208 (2007), http://www.law.northwestern.edu/lawreview/Colloquy/2007/16/.

 

Q. What is the editing process for publishing pieces on the Colloquy?

A. All pieces receive a thorough substantive edit, a source and citation check, and a final edit for technical issues and formatting. Thus, readers can be assured that pieces published on the Colloquy have received the same careful treatment as pieces in the print journal—the only difference is the speed with which Colloquy pieces go from submission to publication. 

Colloquy essays can be published in as little as a month, with the average timeline ranging from six to eight weeks. The speed of the process depends on the author's interest in haste, the author's willingness to review editorial suggestions quickly, and the availability of open Colloquy slots.

Q. What is the submission window for Colloquy essays?

A. We accept submissions on a continual basis. There is no window for submissions, as we review and publish pieces year-round. In most cases, we strive to accept or reject submissions shortly after submission, although in backlogged periods the process has taken longer.

 

Q. How can someone locate a piece on the Colloquy?

A. We regularly have visitors who find our site while using a search engine to try to locate information on legal questions. Additionally, if someone enters a Colloquy citation, or its author and title into a search engine, it will take her there directly. Our sidebar also provides links to essays by author or topic, and our archives can be browsed chronologically. Finally, Colloquy content is available on WESTLAW and will be available on LEXIS in the near future, so Colloquy pieces can be located in exactly the same way as most other major legal scholarship.

 

Q. If I publish on the Colloquy, will that be considered "real" scholarship?

A. Yes. Unlike some other online projects of legal journals, the Colloquy is not published in a magazine-style format, nor is it a reactionary supplement to the Law Review. Rather, the Colloquy is an extension of the Law Review itself, subject to the same standards of quality, but able to take advantage of new technologies in order to publish faster and in a more publicly-accessible and interactive format. Colloquy essays are different from, but certainly not inferior to, traditional Law Review articles and essays—to which the impressive list of authors that we have published in our short history attests. Only the timeliness, conciseness, and overall accessibility of Colloquy essays distinguish them from pieces in the Law Review. 

Web publication is a powerful tool. It allows us to publish with great speed in a format that is instantly available around the world. It enables us to maintain an interactive space for scholarly discussion where scholars and laypersons can engage in back and forth exchanges in both posts and comments. Here, people can discuss emerging legal issues or engage in dialogues within weeks of having an idea, as opposed to the traditional lag of more than a year between the inception of an idea and its publication.

We view these new technologies as the future of legal publication.  Based on a survey we conducted, an increasing number of scholars read and locate scholarship primarily through electronic media, with print serving a less important role. Indeed, much of the content produced by traditional print journals is now accessed mainly in digital formats. Nevertheless, law reviews at all schools follow a publication model that is more than a hundred years old. Through the Colloquy, we have been developing a new paradigm of legal publication—one that is faster, more openly accessible, and far more interactive than what was done previously.

Q. What steps can I take to maximize the chances that my submission will be accepted? 

A. First, have something worthwhile to say. The single most important factor in our acceptance decisions is whether the author is making a useful contribution to legal discussion and thought.

Second, be clear and concise. We are firmly committed to the idea that a piece can be both clear and brief. Give only as much background as is necessary for a reader to follow your argument, and make sure that your piece is organized so that it is easy to read. To this end, try to use footnotes sparingly, and keep them brief, as they can be more disruptive to an online reader than they would be in a print publication.

Third, cite your piece to open-access sources, especially sources available on the internet, as much as possible. We prefer citations that we can follow up with links, enabling our readers to instantly navigate to source material. Also, given that our editing timeline is much faster than a print journal, we find that relying on sometimes lengthy inter-library loans to check sources can bog down the process. If you must cite sources that are not readily available, we prefer that you submit electronic copies of those sources to us for our use in the source-and-cite process.

Fourth, consider writing a critique of previously published scholarship in the Law Review, whether the prior scholarship was in the print journal or on the Colloquy. We enjoy publishing such pieces, and consider them with special care whenever we receive them.

Finally, consider getting other authors involved in creating a dialogue with you on an interesting topic. As the Colloquy title suggests, we are very committed to the idea that interactivity and dialogue are key ways of developing and refining legal ideas. We publish both single-author pieces and multi-person dialogues, but we have a special interest in the latter. We encourage authors to submit a proposal for a dialogue-based set of pieces.  Also, please keep in mind that the more pieces and authors that are on board prior to submitting will increase chances for publication.