The Path of the Law Review: How Inter-field Ties Contribute to Institutional Emergence and Buffer against Change Daniel N. Kluttz School of Information University of California, Berkeley Key Words: legal education; legal profession; legal scholarship; sociological field theory; inter- field relations; neoinstitutional theory; institutional change; path dependence; self-reinforcing mechanisms *Pre-publication draft. Final version published in Law & Society Review at https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/lasr.12393. Suggested citation: Kluttz, Daniel N. (2019) “The Path of the Law Review: How Interfield Ties Contribute to Institutional Emergence and Buffer against Change,” 53 Law & Society Review 239–74. The author would like to thank Rebecca Elliott, Claude Fischer, Neil Fligstein, Marion Fourcade, Kristin George, Jacob Habinek, Heather Haveman, Helena Lyson, Calvin Morrill, Alex Roehrkasse, Michael Schultz, Jonah Stuart Brundage, and anonymous reviewers for insightful comments and feedback on prior versions of the paper. Earlier versions of the paper were presented at annual conferences for the Law and Society Association and the American Sociological Association. Any errors are solely the author’s responsibility. Please direct all correspondence to Daniel N. Kluttz, School of Information, University of California, Berkeley, 102 South Hall #4600, Berkeley, CA 94720-4600; email:
[email protected]. Law reviews are the primary outlet for legal scholars, and the law review system is unique to legal education. People in other fields are astonished when they learn about it; they can hardly believe their ears. What, students decide which articles are worthy to be published? No peer review? And the students chop the work of their professors to bits? Amazing.