An evergreen complaint by law professors about student-edited journals is the tedious level of editing. In the case of my Harvard Law Review comment, for example, there were eight (yes eight!) rounds of editing. It was a pain in the neck, but I found that on each subsequent round of review, we caught more and more errors. (Though the law of diminishing returns kicked in after round 5). Often, when reading my old published law review articles, despite the intricate editing process, I still find errors.
Alas, when publishing a book, that firewall is nowhere near as strong. Instead of an army of 1Ls scrutinizing each italicized period, most publishers assign a single copy-editor, whose specialization is not necessarily in the law. In the case of my experience with Cambridge, the copy-editing was outsourced to India. For reasons I’ll discuss later, that process left a lot to be desired, though because of my own accelerated publication schedule, ultimately, all errors are mine alone.
To that end, I’ve compiled a list of errata for Unraveled. I am working on a second printing as a paperback, which will include a new afterword to discuss the fate of the ACA after the election. (My book ends right as Trump picks up the GOP nomination). Also, in the paperback, I hope to fix all of these errors, and more. If you’ve found any, please send them to me. I must thank reader Robert Woolley, who sent me a careful study of every chapter in the book, flagging a number of corrections.Read More