You’re right that there is inertia against open access archiving; but as you indicate, this is more a reflection of how hard it is to change the status quo, and the lack of knowledge on the part of faculty and editors. But Ernie Miller is just wrong to suggest that there are structural or economic reasons against OA in law reviews, or that the inertia is going to pose a problem. I’ve spoken with a lot more law reviews than Ernie, and in the space of about 2 months got agreement from 21 of them. And this was at the beginning of summer, when they’re off at law firms and not really focussed on their law reviews. I’ve argued elsewhere that there are no substitution effects between OA versions and the Wexis duopoly, so law reviews can be comfortable that they’re not going to take a hit on their income. The only issue is alerting them to the possibilities of OA, and getting them to connect these possibilities to the law reviews’ educational/intellectual mission. So far we’ve been pretty successful at this, and over the next year (with help from people like you, in your role as involved faculty-member) we’ll get lots more. I’m happy to bet you a fancy dinner that we’ll have half the general US law reviews onboard within a year. And I’m low-balling here because the numbers are a function of how much time I have to discuss the issue with each individual law review. Going house-to-house is time-consuming, but it works.