The Albany Law Review has just published a study of the law review article selection process.  [Jason P. Nance and Dylan J. Steinberg, "The Law Review Article Selection Process: Results from a National Study," 71 Albany Law Review 565 (2008).]

As the article begins, the authors explain that the topic of student-edited law reviews was covered in the 1990′s by both the University of Chicago Law Review and Stanford Law Review.  And, only in 2004, was the issue treated again, when the Harvard Law Review surveyed approximately 800 law faculty.  The article continues, “It was against this backdrop that we designed our survey and circulated it to the editors at about 400 student-edited law reviews asking a set of questions designed to peel back the curtain that has shrouded the article selection process.” 

And, perhaps their conclusions won’t surprise some:

We found, for example, that Articles Editors like to publish articles from well-know and widely respected authors.  The obvious concern with this is that an author’s prominence might put stars in the eyes of editors and prevent them from closely scrutinizing her work before making an offer of publication.  Our data suggest, however, that rather than assuming that prominent authors have produced top-notch scholarship, Articles Editors consider an author’s reputation because publishing work by respected authors is one way to increase a journal’s prestige.  It also suggests that journal prestige, rather than the publication of quality legal scholarship, may be the most significant driver of publication decisions.