Scholastica Law Review Gatekeepers: Shaping Legal Scholarship Access

• The Federal Trade Commission sued Match Group, Inc. in 2019, alleging the use of fake advertisements to trick consumers into paid subscriptions.
• A separate class action lawsuit also accused Match of maintaining thousands of inactive, fake, and fraudulent profiles to mislead users about their chances of finding a mate.
• The article uses these lawsuits as an analogy to discuss the "matchmaking" process between academic journals and authors.
• Scholastica is identified as a central platform facilitating the submission process for legal academic publishing.
• This platform plays a significant role in the gatekeeping functions that influence legal scholarship prestige.

Scholastica serves as a central hub for the law review submission process, acting as a primary conduit through which legal scholars submit their work to various academic journals.

The Federal Trade Commission initiated legal proceedings in 2019 against Match Group, Inc., the corporate entity behind prominent dating platforms such as Match.com, Tinder, OKCupid, and PlentyOfFish. This legal action was resolved in August 2025 when Match Group agreed to a $14 million settlement and committed to permanently ceasing deceptive advertising, misrepresenting guarantees, and making it difficult for users to cancel subscriptions. The core of the FTC's complaint had alleged that Match engaged in deceptive practices, specifically employing "fake love interest advertisements" to entice and ultimately mislead "hundreds of thousands of consumers" into purchasing paid subscriptions on its flagship Match.com service. This significant legal action highlighted concerns over digital platforms' responsibilities to their user base.

Concurrently, Match Group, Inc. faced a separate class action lawsuit that echoed similar grievances regarding its operational integrity. This suit contended that the company deliberately maintained "thousands of inactive, fake and fraudulent profiles" across its dating site. The purpose of these profiles, according to the class action, was to "mislead customers about their chances of finding a mate," thereby creating an artificially inflated perception of user activity and potential matches.

While these cases illuminate the complexities of digital "matchmaking" in the romantic sphere, they serve as a compelling backdrop for a different kind of connection-making. The broader discussion here pivots away from romantic encounters to the intricate processes that link academic authors with scholarly publications. The mechanisms and ethical considerations surrounding how individuals are matched with opportunities, whether for love or for publishing, present interesting parallels in the digital age.

The true focus of this analysis lies not in the realm of personal relationships but in the specialized "matchmaking" that occurs between academic journals and authors within the legal field. This critical interface, which dictates the flow of legal scholarship, is significantly managed and facilitated by platforms designed specifically for academic submissions. Among these, Scholastica stands out as a pivotal player.

Scholastica serves as a central hub for the law review submission process, acting as a primary conduit through which legal scholars submit their work to various academic journals. Its operational model streamlines what would otherwise be a fragmented and cumbersome process, consolidating submissions and communications between authors and editorial boards. This digital infrastructure is integral to Scholastica academic publishing, shaping how new legal research is disseminated and evaluated.

By centralizing the submission workflow, Scholastica inherently plays a role in the broader landscape of academic journal gatekeeping. It provides the platform through which initial screening and selection occur, influencing which articles reach the desks of student editors and faculty advisors. Understanding this mechanism is crucial for anyone navigating the competitive world of legal scholarship.

The function performed by platforms like Scholastica extends beyond mere logistical coordination; it fundamentally contributes to the gatekeeping mechanisms that define legal scholarship prestige. The selection process, facilitated by such platforms, determines which scholarly works gain visibility and, consequently, contribute to an author's academic standing and the perceived value of their research. This system is a cornerstone of how legal thought leadership is established and maintained.

For legal professionals and scholars, comprehending these dynamics is not merely an academic exercise but a strategic imperative. The law review submission process is highly competitive, and the choice of platform, along with an understanding of its role in academic journal gatekeeping, can significantly impact the trajectory of a scholar's work. Navigating this environment effectively requires insight into how submissions are managed and evaluated.

Ultimately, the interplay between authors, journals, and submission platforms like Scholastica shapes the very fabric of legal academic publishing. It influences what research is published, who publishes it, and how legal ideas gain traction and influence within the broader legal community. This intricate system of academic journal gatekeeping is a defining characteristic of contemporary legal scholarship.

This article provides insight into the mechanisms and gatekeeping functions of legal academic publishing, particularly the role of platforms like Scholastica and law reviews in shaping academic prestige. Lawyers and legal scholars should understand these dynamics to strategically approach the submission process for their own scholarly work or to critically evaluate the landscape of legal thought leadership.

Source: Original reporting via scraped article.