Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-07T06:31:06.624Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

From the Editor

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 July 2024

Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

As I begin this second volume as editor of the Review, I want to note with appreciation the crucial role played by reviewers of manuscripts for the Law & Society Review. I have been delighted to find that reviewers generally provide detailed and instructive evaluations of content and analysis. Even when a reviewer finds a manuscript unsuitable for publication, the evaluation almost always provides useful advice on how the author can approach the research question in future work. (There are exceptions: a reviewer whose only response was “too simplistic”) As a result of the expertise and impressive investment of time contributed by these anonymous reviewers, nearly every submission published in the Review is improved by the review process.

Type
Editorial
Copyright
Copyright © 1990 Law and Society Association.

References

FELSTINER, William L. R., Richard, ABEL, and Austin, SARAT (1980–81) “The Emergence and Transformation of Disputes: Naming, Blaming, Claiming …,” 15 Law & Society Review 631.Google Scholar
LEVINE, Felice J. (1990) “Goose Bumps and The Search for Signs of Intelligent Life' in Sociolegal Studies: After Twenty-Five Years,” 24 Law & Society Review 7.Google Scholar
MARKOVITS, Inga (1989) “Law and Glastnost'”: Some Thoughts About the Future of Judicial Review Under Socialism,” 23 Law & Society Review 403.Google Scholar
ROSS, H. Laurence (1973) “Law, Science and Accidents: The British Road Safety Act of 1967,” 11 Journal of Legal Studies 1.Google Scholar