Abstract
The nature of the contemporary research environment and an increase in competition impel conventional law journals to address a number of uncomfortable questions concerning their future relevance and viability: Do law journals continue to serve the needs the profession and the academy (assuming that they ever did)? For how long will subscribers continue to pay individual journals for access to content, or to purchase hardcopy? Are law journals antiquated relics of a by-gone era, ill-suited to the realities of modern legal scholarship and the demands of an increasingly complex market, or are they among the last bastions of quality in a wold saturated in blogs, tweets and wikis? The reforms that we at BLR have implemented, and the characteristics that we seek to inculcate, reflect our considered response to questions such as these.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 1-4 |
| Number of pages | 4 |
| Journal | Bond Law Review |
| Volume | 27 |
| Issue number | 1 |
| Publication status | Published - 2015 |