My top ten list:

1. Law professors need to acknowledge the problem and that the problem lies with them, not with the rest of legal profession. Few people outside of academy read law reviews and that's a clear indictment of them. No longer can we just say that law journals fill the practitioner's need and LR's fill another. With literally hundreds of LR articles published every year, how can so few engage the legal profession outside of academia? Instead of worrying about impact factors, let's worry about circulation -- how many folks are reading LRs?

2. There's well over 200 law reviews; ergo, there's not much of a filtering process. Compare this with many other areas of academia (e.g., psychology) where there's only about a handful of journals. Fewer journals increases competition and improves quality.

3. Peer review, peer review, peer review. Yes, we've never had it before, but when are we going to the join the rest of the academic community and stop leaving the selection of LR articles to kids? EDIT: I don't mean to be disrespectful to the students on LR. Heck, I was on a law journal during law school. The point is that students simply don't have the experience to make proper judgments about what is good scholarship. Imagine if medical students ran the New England Journal of Medicine or grad students ran Science?

4. Most LR publish 1 article and maybe a few essays. I suspect many do this to increase the "currency" of their journals. But what other academic journal can you think of that only publishes 1 article per issue?

5. No one likes the Bluebook; it's a monstrousity and everyone knows it. Time to get rid of it and help reduce the number of pages for each article.

6. Law school hiring committees need to stop paying lip service to interdisciplinary work and truly give credit for work published outside of LR.

7. Multiple submissions is clearly a GAME. Publishing should not be a game.

8. Law reviews need to actually give each submission a read. I recently received a rejection from a LR that stated "after careful and thoughtful review of your piece..." yet I had submitted less than 24 hours ago.

9. Most journals cannot be every flavor in the book. More specialized journals would guide submissions to their proper place.

10. Symposium issues seem dubious to me, since from what I can tell, symposiums, like many law school "conferences" are not open submissions, but by invitation only.

I think most law profs would agree that the whole point of scholarship is to have an impact on the field. As many judges at a recent conference eagerly informed us, current scholarship does not do this very well at all.

Just my 2 cents.