Harvard Law Review Forum:
In my haste to blog a link to my new piece, I overlooked a significant event in the law review world: the debut of the Harvard Law Review Forum. Here's the official blurb from the Harvard Law Review's website:
  It has been our experience that short Replies to our Articles often add a great deal of value to the Review, and to the Articles themselves. However, the constraints of the publication process make it impossible for us to publish as many Replies, in as timely a manner, as we would like. The Forum is an online extension of our printed pages that is intended to allow for a more robust scholarly discussion of our Articles.
  In addition to allowing us to publish more timely Replies, the Forum also allows scholars to contribute ideas that may not lend themselves to the traditional law review format. To that end, Forum Replies are approximately 3000 words long, and should be lightly footnoted and sourced in comparison to traditional Articles. However, they are subject to the same editorial standards as the material that appears in our printed volume.
  Replies appearing in the Forum are permanently published on our website as Adobe PDF files. (We are also working with Lexis and Westlaw to incorporate the Forum into their databases.) The Forum is formatted and paginated like our printed volume, and should be cited as follows: Jane Smith, Reply Title, 119 HARV. L. REV. F. 1 (2005),
  The Forum will feature multiple Replies to each Article in the Review. Replies are published on a rolling basis; we invite you to follow the conversations as they unfold.
  You can view the initial set of Harvard Law Review Forum replies here. I was particularly interested in the response to my own article by my friend and brand-spanking new law prof Paul Ohm, The Fourth Amendment Right to Delete.

  I suppose it's natural to compare the HLR Forum to the Yale Law Journal's new site, The Pocket Part. The Yale site is more blog-like; responses are in html, with hyperlinks, and comments are enabled. In contrast, the Harvard site has no comments or hyperlinks, but posts the articles as .pdf documents in that cool HLR font. Plus, the Harvard responses will be available on Westlaw and Lexis. [UPDATE: C.J. Mahoney writes in to add that "The Yale Law Journal is likewise working with Lexis and Westlaw to include Pocket Part content on their databases."]

  Does anyone know if other journals are planning something similar?
C.J. Mahoney (mail):
Just to add one friendly caveat to Professor Kerr's comparison of HLR Forum and The Pocket Part: The Yale Law Journal is likewise working with Lexis and Westlaw to include Pocket Part content on their databases.
-C.J. Mahoney, Editor-in-Chief, The Yale Law Journal
12.20.2005 8:39pm
DNL (mail):
Is "F." the bluebook standard for "Forum," or is it simply going to become that?
12.20.2005 9:11pm
"F." is the Bluebook standard for "Forum" and has been since the seventeenth edition, if not earlier. See The Bluebook: A Uniform System of Citation 325 tbl T.14 (Columbia Law Review Ass'n et al. eds., 17th ed. 2000). We did not just make this up. Had we done that, I would have been a strong proponent of "Fo."

Why, you ask? So that we could say "Harv. L. Rev. Fo. life!" Cf. 2Pac, Thug 4 Life, on Loyal to the Game (Interscope 2004). To quote the great Ron Burgundy, "Don't act like you're not impressed." See Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy (DreamWorks SKG 2004).
12.21.2005 1:38am
I'm not impressed. The Bluebook sucks.

To answer Prof. Kerr's question, I'm sure that the other journals are watching and at least a few imitators are likely to follow, but I don't know of any journals with immediate plans. Some journals are hindered by their lack of technical expertise. Others will probably do the "wait and see" approach to see how HLR and YLJ's sites pan out. Maybe this will be a step in the direction of making student-edited law reviews more "current" and accessible, and maybe it'll be a passing trend that just showcases a minute subset of the (not necessarily relevant) criticism that an article might receive, in a less-than-optimal format.

Time will tell, but it's an interesting experiment.
12.21.2005 1:52am

Are you sure you are using the bold and italics correctly?
12.21.2005 2:07am
Professor Kerr,

I think I'm using bold and italics correctly, but I could be wrong. Our journal uses boldfaced text to represent the small-caps font on our tabloids, so my earlier post comes as close to the proper Bluebook fonts as your weblog will allow. What did you have in mind?


That was the point. The ability to poke fun at silly, self-important people is a major component of Will Ferrell's comic genius. I didn't actually want you to be impressed, I just wanted to answer DNL's question.
12.21.2005 2:23am