On a more general note, the advantage of presenting to people who know the field and can point one in a good direction or towards articles that may not come onto one’s radar has been a great boon to junior scholars’ to whom I have spoken. The openness of these conferences also provides a launching point for those who simply would not be invited to any smaller venue, because they are unknown.

These points do not undercut Mike’s point that one must be quite prepared for large, public conferences, but I recall some papers by senior people that were explicitly offered as “Here is a quick, high-level view of the idea. Now I’d like to take the rest of time to kick it around.” The people knew the subject well and demonstrated their mastery of the area while being open to comments about holes in the specific matter. Maybe one has to have that level of knowledge to take that approach. Still, the speakers had people saying “Read X or Y,” and it seems that framing the issue is what distinguished the presentation. Put differently, Mike may have identified that IPSC may not be that clear about the nature of the papers if there is one.

Frank’s points about citing all that one reads but for space is hard to understand against Mike’s point. Is the issue not having read or is it having read but ignored? Mike’s point seems to address a lack of knowledge. Frank’s point seems to go to showing what one had read but not citing or discussing work that is not really on point. The idea that one could cite more with more space is clear enough, but is it necessary to cite all that one has read? If so, should articles move to including a bibliography? (I would not mind the inclusion, as it would guide me to books I may have encountered.)

The idea of more open spaces for commentary might work, but the early reputation issue will persist. Another possibility is that some group would offer lists for young scholars to read but given the breadth of fields such lists might have to be tailored to each area. In general one great thing about the IP community is that people such as Mike, Frank, and honestly almost every person I have met, are willing to talk about ideas.

Perhaps one way to approach new areas is to read those who one finds, but be humble. Realize that many others will have been through the ideas one considers though from different angles. So after reading someone’s work, call them to discuss their ideas about which you are writing. From there one might be able to ask for further reading about one’s own ideas. This view is not to support a lack of looking. Rather it is to suggest that a well-prepared reader should be able to go to a senior scholar after having read a fair amount and say (after discussing the ideas a bit) “I run into a wall on this issue. Do you have suggestions about other ways to think about the issue and/or where to look further?” A similar track is to go to these conferences, not present, but engage with those in one’s area. For example, at one conference, Dan Burk and Doris Long were generous and fantastic as they listened to my ideas and gave strong, constructive criticism coupled with some reading to do. I could roll a list of such encounters because IP has that culture (to those not mentioned, I hope I have offered my thanks at several spots and please know my gratitude runs deep).

1) I think they provide wireless to help people through the half-baked presentations.

2) On the other hand, wireless and instant internet communications also help solve some of the issues you raise. If you think someone’s work should be informed by another piece that’s out there, you can email them. I’ll often try to compose some email to someone while they’re talking to give them some impressions of their piece.

3) But the ignoring of prior work is a very serious problem, particularly as it tends to reinforce the “Matthew Effect” Merton commented on. People feel pressure to deliver up a “big theory” piece before tenure, and the new law review length guidelines make that harder to do. So junior scholars have to economize on whom they cite, and often it’s going to be to the most recent work by the hottest names. There is little to no reward for digging beneath that work and perhaps making the point that the similar ideas were explored years before. . . . or carefully tracing the evolution of proposals over time, and clearly noting how one’s work adds to that “chain novel” of research.

4) But that problem could be ameliorated if sites like SSRN permitted commenting. Note that Google news is giving sources and others a “right of reply” on its site.

5) Ultimately (and here I will remind everyone of your article on open access, Mike), the solution seems to be the creation of webpages on which scholars (particularly juniors like myself) can post their work and then have others put comments beneath to remind us of what’s already been done. Of course, ideally, we’d have found that already, but sometimes it is hard to keep on top of everything. I think I printed out at least 800 sources for my article on information overload; I probably cited 200 of them, and the other 600 could easily have been included–but for the space limits of law reviews.

6) In defense of the half-baked: I think that we should provide a venue for people who, say, in the middle of a project realize it’s a bit of a dead-end, and move in a different direction. It’s kind of like the Journal of Negative Results:

http://www.jnrbm.com/

I think my piece at the conference was along those lines–I realized it was a bit too complex a project in educational policy for a legal scholar to complete, but it laid the foundation for a more appropriate project on the relationship between IP and administrative law.

I figured: I’ve done a lot of research, formulated and written the contours of a paper, thought about many (undoubtedly not all) criticisms and where I’m likely to come out on the questions that I’ve raised. Given its current state, I thought that this would be a great time to solicit comments and reactions. Maybe I’m onto something where there’s “no there there?” Someone may have read something that I missed but should know about, or is writing or thinking about writing in a related area, etc. So they may not be the finer points to discuss, but valuable feedback at this stage nonetheless.

I echo Michael Risch’s comments above and add that it’s wonderful that the IP prof community is so supportive and encourages junior scholars to present their works. Thanks!

1. The general advice is not to go public with a draft until all holes are filled. While most holes might get filled by conference time, the goal (for me anyway) is to make sure I have filled all holes. Granted, I should catch the big ones, but that’s not enough to go public according to many I have heard from.

2. The IPSC paper deadline is in mid-July. If the paper is the product of summer writing, that can be too early to get a good draft going. I thought about my paper a lot and had a fair amount written, but it just wasn’t the quality I would want to share as of mid-July (or even now).

Given that I am going to WIPIP, my own goal was to get some feedback on my (hopefully mostly baked) idea, and then work to get a complete draft done in time for WIPIP.

Perhaps my concerns above are different than the two items you point out (being too raw and not reviewing the literature), but for someone just starting out it may be difficult to tell the difference, especially where there are not that many opportunities for junior scholars to present.