Online Essay Submissions

SLR Online submissions should be original pieces of timely scholarship on newsworthy topics of no more than 3000 words, inclusive of footnotes, and in a highly readable style accessible to a wide audience (see previously published Essays on SLR Online for examples). All citations should be in Bluebook format. Please submit an editable word processing document (.doc, .docx, .rtf, .otf, etc.) and NOT a PDF document.

Questions should be addressed to Brian Quinn, Senior Online Editor for Volume 68, at online@stanfordlawreview.org.

Please leave your name off of your article (but included on your cover letter / CV and in the form below) for purposes of blind review. Note that our general ethics policy also applies to SLR Online submissions.

[To instead submit an Article for potential publication in the print edition of the Stanford Law Review, visit the articles submissions page.]

If you are responding to an article, please paste its url in this field
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

Basic Information
Format: 09/04/2015
Author Contact
Location
Files
Maximum file size: 10 MB
Allowed extensions: doc docx odc pdf
Maximum file size: 10 MB
Allowed extensions: doc docx odc pdf
Maximum file size: 10 MB
Allowed extensions: doc docx odc pdf
 
Connect with SLR

Stanford Law Review on Twitter   Stanford Law Review on Facebook   Stanford Law Review on Google+   Stanford Law Review on Google+

SLR Mailing List

Subscribe to receive updates from the Stanford Law Review.

 
SLR in the News

Justice Scalia cites Is Capital Punishment Morally Required? Acts, Omissions, and Life-Life Tradeoffs in his concurring opinion in Glossip v. Gross.

Justice Breyer cites Uses and Abuses of Empirical Evidence in the Death Penalty Debate in his dissent in Glossip v. Gross.

Justice Kagan cites Statutory Interpretation from the Inside in her dissent in Yates v. United States.

SCOTUSBlog references Mark Rienzi's SLR Online article Substantive Due Process as a Two-Way Street.

The National Journal praises Substantive Due Process as a Two-Way Street.

The Economist references The Drone as a Privacy Catalyst.

The Green Bag lauds Toby Heytens's article Reassignment as an "exemplar of good legal writing" from 2014.

The Economist mentions Urska Velikonja's forthcoming article Public Compensation for Private Harm in the cover article of its August 30 issue.

The Economist writes a column on Stephen Bainbridge's and Todd Henderson's article Boards-R-Us.

SCOTUSBlog cites Eric Hansford's Volume 63 note Measuring the Effects of Specialization with Circuit Split Resolutions in one of its Academic Highlight blog posts.

The Atlantic and The National Journal cite Jeffrey Rosen's SLR Online article The Right to Be Forgotten.

WSJ MoneyBeat writes a column about Urska Velikonja's forthcoming article Public Compensation for Private Harm.

Education Law Prof Blog discusses Joshua Weishart's article Transcending Equality Versus Adequacy.

The D.C. Circuit cites Statutory Interpretation from the Inside in Loving v. IRS (PDF).

Constitutional Law Prof Blog discusses Toby Heytens's article Reassignment.

Justice Scalia cites Beyond DOMA: Choice of State Law in Federal Statutes in his dissent in Windsor.

The New York Times mentions The Right to Be Forgotten in an article and its 6th Floor Blog.

Slate references The Drone as a Privay Catalyst.

The Atlantic cites Shireen A. Barday's article, Punitive Damages, Remunerated Research, and the Legal Profession.

Symposium