Ipse Dixit


Robert Anderson on Analytics for Law Review Submissions and Publishing

Season 1, Ep. 681

In this episode, Robert Anderson, Professor of Law at Pepperdine University Caruso School of Law, introduces ScholarSift, a new analytics platform for law reviews he created with co-founder Trent Wenzel. He discusses initially identifying the need for a platform like ScholarSift and distinguishes it from other search functions with which listeners may already be familiar, while relating the basic mechanics of use. He describes how ScholarSift's algorithm is different than those used by other services and how it can lead to greater citation counts for women, people of color, and other scholars from marginalized communities. He then predicts how ScholarSift could lead to curtailing the volume of submissions made to law reviews by legal scholars, lightening the burden on both authors and law reviews. He also explains how it could be a useful tool for law students even outside the law review context. Anderson is on Twitter at @ProfRobAnderson.

This episode was hosted by Maybell Romero, Associate Professor of Law at Northern Illinois University College of Law. Romero is on Twitter at @MaybellRomero.

More Episodes


Aliza Shatzman on Holding Judges Accountable

Season 1, Ep. 758
In this episode, Aliza Shatzman, an attorney and advocate based in Washington, DC, discusses her article "Untouchable Judges? What I've learned about harassment in the judiciary, and what we can do to stop it," which will be published in the UCLA Journal of Gender & Law. Here is the abstract:Drawing from the author’s own experience of gender discrimination, harassment, and retaliation during her clerkship and in the years following it by a former DC Superior Court judge, this Article analyzes the deficits in current federal and DC judicial reporting systems to demonstrate the urgent need for reform. I argue that harassment in the judiciary is pervasive, due to both enormous power disparities between judges and law clerks, and various institutional barriers that perpetuate misconduct and discourage reporting. I survey existing methods of judicial discipline in both the federal and DC Courts and argue that these provide insufficient redress for workplace misconduct. I then discuss the Judiciary Accountability Act (JAA) (HR 4827/S 2553), which would finally protect judiciary employees, including law clerks and federal public defenders, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, enabling employees to sue their harassers and seek damages for harm done to their careers, reputations, and future earning potential. Furthermore, I argue that the DC Courts should be included in the JAA, because they are Article I courts created and regulated by Congress, and DC Courts judges are arguably federal judges for Title VII and disciplinary purposes. I also offer a variety of other proposed reforms, which would both strengthen the JAA and provide additional protections to uniquely vulnerable judiciary employees. I conclude by reflecting on my attempts to report the misconduct I experienced, how the systems failed me when I tried to report, and my efforts to seek justice for myself and accountability for the misbehaving former judge.This episode was hosted byBrian L. Frye, Spears-Gilbert Professor of Law at the University of Kentucky College of Law. Frye is on Twitter at@brianlfrye.