Note Submissions

Please read the instructions for submitting your note below. At the bottom of the page you will find a submission form to submit your Note or Comment for review.

To maintain the integrity of the blind evaluation process for student submissions, please address comments and questions to Tierney O'Rourke, Executive Editor for Volume 69, at Your questions will then be passed along to Maria Buxton, Senior Notes Editor for Volume 69, with any identifying information removed.

1. What is a Note or Comment?: A Note is a student-authored piece of academic writing which discusses and analyzes an original legal issue or problem in some depth. A Comment is a student-authored piece of academic writing that is centered around an analysis or critique of a recent case, piece of legislation, law journal article, or law-related book. Comments are also significantly shorter than Notes.

2. Who can submit?: The Notes Committee encourages all Stanford Law School students to submit their written work for publication. If you are not a Stanford student you must submit your work as an article. We strongly encourage all students interested in making a submission to download the Guide to Student Submissions, which provides critical information about the Notes/Comments process, including guidelines for making a submission, details about the selection process, and information about what makes a good student submission.

3. Blinded Submission: All identifying information, including the author’s name and any acknowledgements, must be removed prior to submission. Further, authors should take care not to discuss their work with any members of the Notes Committee.

Please consult the following links for information on how to remove identifying information from Microsoft Word documents: Word 2003, Word 2007, and Word 2010.

4. Statement of Originality: All Notes & Comments must contain a Statement of Originality detailing how the argument being advanced fits into the current literature. It should be clear from this Statement how your argument differs from those of other authors. For Comments, please include a list of other reviews on the case, legislation, article, or book, and address how yours adds to them. The Statement should also provide information about the published scholarship that underlies or inspired the piece, the names of professors who would be well-suited to review the submission (they need not be at Stanford), and the names of professors who are already familiar with the piece and its authorship. The Statement of Originality should be inserted at the front of the submission, as a cover page.

5. Statement of Resubmission: All resubmitted work must contain a Statement of Resubmission detailing how the paper has been improved since the prior submission. The author should include in this Statement a discussion of how she has taken into consideration any feedback provided by the Notes Committee from the prior submission.

6. Word Limit: Notes cannot be longer than 17,500 words; Comments cannot be longer than 7,500 words. These word limits include footnotes (be careful, as the default setting in Microsoft Word does not include footnotes in the word count), but do not include the table of contents, the Statement of Originality, or the Statement of Resubmission.

7. Limit on Submissions: During each Note/Comment call, a student may make no more than two total submissions (including both Comments and Notes).

Author Contact
  • 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

Maximum file size: 5 MB
Allowed extensions: doc docx odc
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

The Washington Post mentions Richard A. Sander's article A Systemic Analysis of Affirmative Action in American Law Schools.

SCOTUSBlog references Jason Zarrow and William Milliken's SLR Online article Retroactivity, the Due Process Clause, and the Federal Question in Montgomery v. Louisiana.

The Atlantic mentions Keith Cunningham's article Father Time: Flexible Work Arrangements and the Law Firm's Failure of the Family.

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.

Popular Online