Garcia-Cartaya 1

Nick Garcia-Cartaya

Professor Steffen Guenzel

ENC 1102 Module 5

10 April 2019

First Draft

Research Paper

Introduction:

Peer review is a broad phrase that can have a multitude of meanings depending on what

background and literacy knowledge one might have, but it has become clear in recent years that

peer review can be lead to the perfection and higher proficiency for many different practices. In

the law field, peer review can take many forms. However, in this research we will follow the

definition of peer review that is most prominent for law librarians. Peer review is defined for this

purpose as, “the process that requires experts in a specific field of law to evaluate, especially for

publication in a periodical, another author’s work in that field” (FIND SOURCE).

Periodicals is a key proponent in the law profession. When publishing cases or any of

these periodicals, law librarians are only selecting articles and publications that are using these

peer review systems while even some law librarians require any submitted periodical to undergo

one of the three major peer review systems: single-blind, double-blind, and open-peer review.

This research paper attempts to break down these systems that already are in place and try to

show how these systems can not only be used by the law librarians and publications but all

throughout the law profession. This is of major importance because with a profession that deals

with real life or death scenarios, there must be a system in place to prevent any errors that can

affect the outcome of the case.

 Garcia-Cartaya 2

The reasons for adopting a system of peer review are obvious. Most individuals in any

research community can highlight the major strengths of peer review. They argue the importance

through its function as a safeguard to detect errors or unwarranted assertions, how it improves

the quality of work, and how it ensures standards in its users. Also, with the publications of

better and more accurate periodicals, editors with the help of such expert oversight, are better

able to determine the value of the papers being considered, thus enabling them to publish a body

of reliable information for the future use of other researchers in the area. Simply put, better

publications can mean better research in the future.

Literature Review:

To be able to truly understand the purpose of my evaluation one must understand my

specific topic and how it’s interconnected with Nancy McCormack’s publishing. While

searching through the database I encountered her article titled, "Peer Review and Legal

Publishing: What Law Librarians Need to Know about Open, Single-Blind, and Double-Blind

Reviewing.” While reading McCormack’s publication I was entranced on not only its relation to

my topic at hand but was the main document that lead to the solution of my research. To be

reassured that this document was professionally written I first began to take a look at the authors

background and credential’s. Nancy McCormack is the head of Law Library and Assistant

Professor of Law at Queen’s University Kingston, Ontario Canada.

As the use of peer review in these journals increases McCormack hopes to show the

difference between the various peer review methods and why a journal’s editor might favor one

over the other. McCormack uses the peer review system to accurately assess the validity of the

documents before publishing. She continues to explain why some lawyers don’t use these
 Garcia-Cartaya 3

systems. She wrote how they argued that student editors would still be able to discern the

identity of authors or their institutions from clues provided in the paper. More importantly, they

argued that law reviews receive too many papers in a year, and a permanent peer review process

would significantly, “slow down publishing” (McCormack 11). With this in effect, lawyers

might be dismayed from publishing their work because of the time increase added on by the peer

review system.

While reading this piece of work, I felt McCormack’s purpose throughout the document,

feeling that she only wrote this periodical to not only change the mind and attitudes of her

colleagues but to also encourage and guide law students and new lawyers to better more efficient

working trends. McCormack tries to push her colleagues to change their out dated style for

better, more efficient peer review case work. She accomplishes her goal by stating all the

positive effects of more effective peer-review on a large scale. This publication was conceived

mainly for currently practicing lawyers who don’t already practice these systems of peer-review,

law students who need to learn the new styles of law peer review, and fresh lawyers who are

trying to develop their skills and push for more efficient work practices. This article is

interwoven with my research because here she perfectly explained what systems were in use and

how effective they really are.

Methods and Materials:

In the search to discover the most efficient way to peer review in the field and to critique

the existing peer review system that is used in the law profession, I wanted to question the

lawyer’s accountability to revise their own work and work towards the perfection of each

document submitted. I want to make sure each document is the most lawfully and grammatically
 Garcia-Cartaya 4

accurate piece of writing it could possibly be. To be able to truly understand and communicate

this need to a general audience it was of pinnacle importance that I began to research about the

certain peer review standards that are already in place in major law firms.

The process that I underwent to begin my research was going on the UCF database to

search for law journals that might have had a connection with my topic. The UCF database is

readily available to me and seemed to me as the best approach if I wanted to find credible

documents on my topic of research. Here I discovered great articles and journals that helped

explain the topic at hand and the downfall of the current systems that already are in place.

After learning about the three different peer review systems that some lawyers already

use, I connected with a lawyer in Miami to do an interview to examine what peer review systems

he uses, if any, and his thoughts about how they can be improved. To protect the identity of the

lawyer I will refer to him as Andrew.

1. How long have you been a lawyer?

2. What has been your experience with peer review in your job life?
3. Has anyone in your law firm required you to undergo peer review before submitting
an important document or publication?
3. Do you think more peer review in law can be beneficial to the community as a whole?
4. Do you know the different type of peer review strategies used for law?
5. If you can identify some peer review systems that are already used in law, do you
know where you learned these systems from?

After examining my data, I began to hypothesize how you can fix the issues at hand and

allow for the accountability for lawyers on the grammatical and logical consistency of their

publishing.

Results:

With completing the interview with Andrew there was more accurate and personal

evidence to support my claims and ideologies. (WRITE ABOUT ANDREW’S RESPONSES)

 Garcia-Cartaya 5

1. I have been a lawyer for around five years.

2. In my daily routine I really don’t encounter peer reviewing often. For a few
periodicals, some law-Liberians do require some sort of peer review, but it’s not always
necessary.
3. Within my law firm I have never been requested from a superior to submit a peer
reviewed document.
4. Honestly yes and no.
5. The only peer review system I’ve used is open-blind but I am aware of the other
types.
6. I learned about the peer review systems at an internship I took during law school.
There they made the interns peer review some of the documents that were about to be
sent to the law librarians for publication.

Discussion:

In general, most law firms don’t require any peer review prior to any submissions however they

do have the option which is typically under the lawyer’s discretion.

Conclusion:

Works Cited
 Garcia-Cartaya 6

Casserly, Peter. “Everything You Need to Know About Single Blind Peer Review.” Blog | Ex

Ordo, 12 Feb. 2016, www.exordo.com/blog/single-blind-peer-review/.

Casserly, Petter. “Benefits and Drawbacks of Double-Blind Peer Review.” Blog | Ex Ordo, 29

Jan. 2017, www.exordo.com/blog/double-blind-peer-review/.

McCormack, Nancy, Peer Review and Legal Publishing: What Law Librarians Need to Know

about Open, Single-Blind, and Double-Blind Reviewing (February 7, 2009). Law Library

Journal, Vol. 101, No. 59, 2009. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1339227

Okike, Kanu. “Single-Blind vs Double-Blind Peer Review in the Setting of Author Prestige.”

JAMA, American Medical Association, 27 Sept. 2016,

jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/2556112.

Ross-Hellauer, Tony. “What Is Open Peer Review? A Systematic Review.” F1000Research,

F1000Research, 31 Aug. 2017, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5437951/.

Suber, Peter. “Open Access.” The MIT Press Essential Knowledge Series, The MIT Press, 2013,

mitpress.mit.edu/books/open-access.