Law school professors grind out an unending stream of articles, and do practicing lawyers and judges. The difference is that the journals are run and edited by students at law schools, with little faculty involvement. Few have peer review or blind review, and the students feel free to improve the articles with their editorial changes. Who you are and what school you are at has as much to do with whether the top journals publish your article as does its content. Since the student editors have no expertise in the substantive content of the articles, they are little better than jurors in separating glib charlatanism from brilliant insight.
Lawyers see the world from their own frame of reference.
To accept the validity of scientific publishing implicitly questions their own model. This makes the gulf between the professions much more difficult to bridge than even the authors of this book convey. Caught in Your Own Trap Knowing what is worth reading is a key skill for scientists and persons evaluating scientific research. If you work in a popular field, there is much more published than one individual can read. Such an error in a book on how to figure out what is good science is especially troublesome.