Many law reviews have chosen to use Scholastica to manage articles – the question is, why? And how does Scholastica help authors?
When an author submits an article to a law review through ExpressO, most of the time that submission has been sent to the journal as an email – an email among thousands of other submission emails, an email among thousands of expedite request emails, an email among thousands of author question emails, and ultimately an email among tens of thousands of emails within a 2 month period. The law review is then tasked with managing thousands of emails in their inbox – and an email inbox littered with messages and attachments isn’t a good way to manage scholarship. It’s not good for the law review or the author.
Authors do not want their article to be one email among ten thousand with the risk of it being lost or overlooked – and neither do editors. Authors should not be excited when they submit an article via ExpressO or email, and that submission becomes one email among thousands of other emails.
Authors and editors benefit from a system where a submission can be read easily, debated among editors, reviews can be written and debated, where notes can be made, where versions of files can all be in one place, where expedite requests are useful tools and not separate emails that have to be found and reconciled with the original article.
Authors should be happy knowing that their submission will not be lost or forgotten in the flood submission emails. The author is hoping that the journal will carefully read their article, and make a deliberate decision on whether to publish the article – and Scholastica gives editors the tools to do that.
That is why Scholastica is better for law review authors: because the journals using Scholastica have the tools to spend more time reading and debating and reviewing the articles they receive and less time trying to find lost emails or trying to organize thousands of emails.
Scholastica provides tools to law reviews to be more efficient and more effective with their review process. We also work with journals to build new tools to help them try different ways to improve their process – and this, too, is good for authors.