Finally, some potential action over in the States over those ridiculously long law review articles

About time. A bunch of leading Law Reviews have taken action against the rising tide of superfluous words that we see in US law review articles, and are trying to cut back on Law Prof verbosity.

Here is a joint statement from law reviews at Columbia, Cornell, Duke, Georgetown, Harvard, Michigan, Stanford, Texas, U. Penn., Virginia, and Yale, stating that:

' To the extent that the article selection or editing process encourages the submission and publication of lengthier articles, each of the law reviews listed above is committed to rethinking and modifying its policies as necessary. Indeed, some have already done so. The vast majority of law review articles can effectively convey their arguments within the range of 40-70 law review pages, and any impression that law reviews only publish or strongly prefer lengthier articles should be dispelled. Ultimately, individual law reviews will have to decide for themselves how best to resolve these concerns. Please know, however, that editors across the country are cognizant of the troubling trend toward longer articles and are actively exploring how to address it.'

According to the Harvard Law Review policy:

'The Review will give preference to articles under 25,000 words in length -- the equivalent of 50 law review pages -- including text and footnotes. The Review will not publish articles exceeding 35,000 words -- the equivalent of 70-75 law review pages -- except in extraordinary circumstances.'

I think this is a great idea, and long overdue. The tendency to write books instead of articles it not a good one and not conducive to good scholarship. Good scholarship distills and communicates ideas - it does not bog the reader down in endless proofs of just how learned the writer is.