The Volokh Conspiracy

Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent

The Very First Empirical Study of Novelty Claims in Law Review Articles

They're up, as you might guess.


Over at Prawfs, Paul Horwitz has a post on the rise of novelty claims in law review articles.  A novelty claim is an author's claim that the article is the first article on Subject X, or the first article to address Subject Y.  Law review authors, especially junior authors, sometimes include such claims to try to establish that their article is novel and therefore something new that adds to the body of scholarly knowledge.

Paul finds a surge in such claims, at least based on a quick-and-dirty Westlaw query. The annual numbers have jumped from about 25 articles a year twenty years ago to about 200 articles a year today.  Paul comments:

At back of a great deal of this, of course, is law review editors and their inevitable lack of discernment, for which a novelty claim serves as a substitute. But they need only accept their fair share of the blame. Law professors do not always have a broad range of knowledge or a deep education in their own academic profession. They forget the scholarly past, if they ever learned it. And they are called upon to judge candidates across a range of subjects far from their own expertise. (Perhaps they shouldn't be. It's not clear to me that the whole faculty should have an equal vote on all candidates regardless of subject matter.) They may be just as eager for the same proxies. They may prefer bad ones to none at all. And, in my view, however much they may know and profess to know that most such claims are unwarranted and strategic, they (like the rest of us) can easily fall prey to the habit of expecting such claims simply because they are the norm and of believing them more than they know they should. We forge the chains we wear in life, and soon stop seeing them as chains, if we see them at all.

9) My view of all this, obviously, is at best jaded and at worst despairing. But let me end on a somewhat more positive note. I find the numbers given above depressing, in part because of what they say about the system and its determinants and in part because I think writing, scholarly or otherwise, should be a unique expression of personality. (And also, of course, because the sentence is often insincere and rarely true.) But, as I suggested above, perhaps the growth of the phrase and its mechanical invocation is a function of the fact that there is more competition among a much wider range of legal scholars, writing in a large number of fields and methods and coming from a large number of backgrounds. In some ways, and perhaps slightly counter-intuitively, one may be freer to be distinctive and eccentric in a smaller, more closed and elitist system, in which idiosyncrasies are more accepted because everyone already knows everyone else and everyone's work is read more closely and evaluated in a more individualized fashion because there are fewer people and less writing to sort through (and/or because the primary sortition in such a world occurs at the level of distinguishing the establishment from everyone else). Maybe the bureaucratization and standardization that a phrase like "this is the first" represents, even if those who write it don't see it as such, is just a way to deal with a larger, more specialized, more diverse universe of scholars. That's cause for good cheer. It's just unfortunate that it doesn't seem to be an especially good or honest way or one that makes for good reading.

My advice to law review authors, especially junior authors, to the extent anyone cares, is to be wary of making direct novelty claims ("this is the first article to…" etc.).  If you feel it's accurate, feel free to make a direct novelty claim in the draft you submit to journals. But consider changing it to avoid that formulation by the final version.  Your article should be novel, of course.  But it's best not to be the one to proclaim it. It's something like writing in an introduction that "This is a really great article that you'll learn a lot from reading." Sure, you want that to be true.  But you'd sound amateurish if you actually wrote that. An alternative might be to say something like, "This issue is particularly important because it has not been addressed in prior scholarship," adding a footnote to what else similar is out there, showing why it's not on the same. You can make the point, but I would recommend avoiding the direct novelty claim formulation.

NEXT: Judge Limits Discovery of Kevin Spacey’s Past Romantic and Sexual Partners

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. My rule for law review articles is that there should be more likely readers than people involved in writing and editing the article. I realize this is unquantifiable, but I would bet a lot of money less people read my note than were involved in the editing process. We could weed out maybe 90% with my unworkable system.

  2. Law professors do not always have a broad range of knowledge or a deep education in their own academic profession. They forget the scholarly past, if they ever learned it.

    Somewhere in the Foundation series, some professors argue about the value of the standard "millenial depth search" for scientific research, and why you didn't need to search the entire 30,000 year galactic civilization history. Functionally everything was always rehashed over and over.

    1. I was going to use this same quote to make some snarky comment about too damned man laws. Humans have some limit on how many people they can remember. Once you get past that, all you can do is flounder, wonder if you knew them from school 30 years ago, or was it that flagger you talked with last week while waiting to get through the construction zone?

      Maybe this is the same. So many laws that no one can remember they even exist, let alone what they purport to do.

    2. Yes and no. The view is that the universe began with the birth of the Internet, and anything Google can't find doesn't exist.

      With search, it matters not how old the results are. It only matters what is found or not found on the first page of hits.

  3. Glad to see Prof. Horwitz filling this much-needed gap in the literature.

  4. IANAL, but I have always thought that describing a legal argument as "novel" was a backhanded compliment at best.

    Sort of like describing someone's cooking as "interesting".

  5. This is a spectacular and novel comment, never before written on the internet. I am the first one to congratulate myself in the comment section and describe my the novelty and wittiness.

  6. I made this type of overclaim once per a colleague's suggestion on getting better placement. Well, a top journal sent it out for peer review and the comments pointed out the overclaiming. I was so embarrassed I have never done it again.

  7. In the sciences you tend to see claims that some minor fact is of critical importance to understanding something only a tiny clique of of scientists even know about, much less care about.

Please to post comments