For more than three decades of law research, i have conducted hundreds of student thesis, and i have seen so many of them, from their first contribution to their steady output in the core journal of law, with so much to talk about。
Today, in my capacity as an expert, i want to talk to you about the key issues published in the core journal of law -- both as a guide to the pits and as a "circulation secret" that i have repeatedly emphasized when i bring students。
Question: don't be greedy, you have to dig deep
Every year, when i direct my graduate studies, i always throw a bowl of cold water: don't come up with a big deal like china's law building study. The editor of the core journal of law handles dozens of submissions every day, and can see at first sight what the choice is of “fake space”. I brought a student who initially wanted to write a study on the application of the law after the implementation of the civil code, which covered 20 secondary titles, and i was beaten back and recast. He then focused on the small cut of “the fictional rules of adjudication of receivables in factoring contracts”, but received written notice of the core journal in three months。
The choice of the subject to be preferred by the core journal of law is based on three principles: first, that there is a "cruising" and that there are issues in the current study that have not yet been clarified, such as the article on data determination in the chinese law last year, can you dig deeper from the perspective of the "conflict between the right to be forgotten and the flow of data"? The second is “to walk on the ground” and not to depart from the rhetoric of judicial practice. I've seen one of the saddest articles, arguing that logic is perfect, but there's no real case in it, and it's finally rejected by the core journal of law as a “lack of practice”. Thirdly, “to keep an eye on new developments”, the newly amended companies act this year and the forthcoming regulations accompanying the personal information protection act, all of which are areas of recent focus in the core journal of law, where the chances of recruitment are much higher if you are to make a contribution in advance。
Structure: layers progressive like building blocks
Students often ask me with the first draft of the thesis: "teacher, i think the arguments have come up, why did the editor say the logic is confused?" in fact, the structure requirements of the core journal of law are like building blocks -- each piece is steady in its place。
When i revise the draft, i ask the students to draw a “map of the relationship of argument”: does the question in the introductory part of the text lead to an uncharted thought? Can the case and the rule of law that follow each argument directly support the view? In addition to summing up, did the conclusions respond to the “unsolved puzzle” in the introduction? Last year, an article published in law studies changed the catalogue eight times, culminating in a progressive structure of “problems – comparative learning – local practice dilemmas – solutions,” a clear logical chain that the core journal of law values。
And to remind you, don't put "unuseful blocks." for the sake of word count, some students may dilute the main line by putting in their minds a judicial interpretation that is not sufficiently relevant to the core argument. Remember, a good paper structure should be like a surgical knife -- precise, sharp, straight to the core of the problem。
Academic norms: keeping the bottom line to go. Far
Every time i meet, i stress that academic norms are the "red line" of the core journal of law, who touches who turns over. Too many minor cases have been seen over the years: students use a medium translation directly because they refer to foreign literature, resulting in misperceptions due to translation deviations, and others omit to indicate in their notes a case source that the editor has identified as “hidden copying”, not only of the text but also of the credibility of subsequent submissions。
There are three “surviving techniques” given to students: first, to quote “trace the roots”, to quote a scholar's point of view and try to find the original text rather than transpose it, and the editor of the core journal of law is far more authentic than you can imagine; second, the case is “fresh-specific”, giving priority to the supreme court's case guidance or to the typical jurisprudence of almost three years, so that the old case of 10 years ago is stopped; and third, self-searching, “blowing the story”, using the “academic end-of-of-the-scenession detection system” of the net, to check it, and ask students to cross-check the presentation of the note, so that low-level errors do not destroy the entire paper。
Input: touch "tempered" and hit again
The core law journal is like a teacher with a different "temporary" attitude -- some like theoretical depth, some prefer empirical research, and if they don't know their temper, it's useless. The doctoral week i brought was a simultaneous investment in two core periodicals last year: a comparative analysis of the edition of law in china and the foreign, and empirical research data were added to the version of law sciences, which resulted in both countries giving notice of admission, which is the effect of “how to invest”。
Before making a contribution, “works” must be done: downloading from the network of journal editors for almost three years about whether there are special provisions such as “fund project priority” “author identity requirements”; researching the journal “columns”, such as the “justice system” section of the french research, is particularly interested in having a copy of the court's research data; and even focusing on the research directions of the journal editors and learning about their recent academic hot spots。
Don't panic when you get a withdrawal. Last year, a student received a revision of a core journal, containing 17 amendments, which he thought were deliberately motivated by the editor. I asked him to do a word-by-word analysis of the comments, and i found that in fact 15 were questions of format and presentation, and only 2 related to the adjustment of views. After careful revision, it was taken over shortly. Remember, the withdrawal of the core journal of law is not a denial, but a “customs clearance tip”。
Students, it is never a matter of time to publish papers in the core journal of law. My first core paper in the year, which was changed 11 times, was rejected 5 times before it finally came out. But it is this process that gives me a real understanding of the rigour and value of legal research。
The confusion you're experiencing right now -- the choice card shell, the disarray of structure, the rejection of the text, all of us. It is important to remember that the core journal of law is always innovative, logical and responsible research。
If you have any specific problems with writing, such as how a selected subject deepens and how an argument adjusts, you can leave a message in the comment area. As a mentor, i would be happy to work with you to make more valuable legal research available on the stage of the core law journal。
