What to write - Types of articles

Lawyr.it has put together a new set of Editorial Guidelines in order to make it easier for the authors to choose the types of articles they want to write and submit for publication. In this section you will find guidelines as to what we kindly suggest you take into consideration when you decide to write an article for our magazine.

The main feature of every article Lawyr.it seeks to promote and publish is the added value of that paper. We want to encourage students to only write articles that would add value to a field, meaning that each article brings something new, i.e, different from what has been written before, instead of reiterating arguments and opinions that have been expressed before.

We will explain in the following paragraphs exactly how to do that, so stay tuned.

In our vision as an editorial team there are two categories of articles that would add value and these two are descriptive articles and argumentative articles. Each of the categories has sub types: 

Descriptive articles

• Literature review
• Comparative article
• Procedural article
• Legal updates

Argumentative articles 

• Status Quo analysis
• Argumentation analysis
  • Propose new arguments
  • Propose new perspectives
  • Critique of existing arguments

The articles we will include in our future issues should fall into one of these categories, so make sure you read it carefully. We hope this set of guidelines will help everyone and make it easier to write an article.

A. DESCRIPTIVE

I. Literature Review

This descriptive article supposes that the author would gather all the bibliographical resources on a certain topic and analyse what the doctrine has produced on that topic so far.

The structure of this type of paper should be the following:

1. Aim to tell us what are you going to analyse in your paper - present the topic and let the reader know why are you writing this
2. Roadmap – it should be a short presentation of the structure of your article – list the main points that will follow
3. Definition - it should be a collection of definitions of the topic/institution that you wish to analyse - definitions that have been produced so far by the doctrine
4. Biggest issue with what was written so far – tell us about the benefits, disadvantages, applicability, etc. of the analysed piece of literature
5. Problems – present various means of interpretations of the institution in the literature, gaps, trends, etc.
6. Conclusion – it should comprise a call to action for the academia, due to the issues you have identified in your article regarding that particular issue/institution

II. Comparative article

In such an article the author should choose two or more institutions/issues and compare them.

The structure should go as following

1. Aim – what are you going to compare and why
2. Roadmap - main points of the paper
3. Definitions of the compared elements – the ones existent in the doctrine or your own definition
4. Similarities between the two concepts
5. Differences between them – effects, impact of these differences (why do we care about this?), weigh one against the other
6. Personal Opinion of choice between the two elements - which one do you prefer/think is best and why
7. Conclusion

While points 4 and 5 should be approached in an objective and comparative manner, point 6 should have a subjective touch, because it should reflect the author’s personal opinion.

III. Procedural articles

This is a how to article, and being descriptive means that its purpose is to help the reader figure out how to make use of a certain procedure, for example how to file a complaint, how to resort to mediation and so on.

Proposed structure:

1. Aim
2. Roadmap
3. Definition - what is the procedure
4. How to do it - asses the procedure: highlight the goal of the procedure, state the criteria (when do you need to use it), the steps that must be taken by the interested person, challenges that might be encountered by the applicant and perhaps best practices and tips-if the author is aware of such tips.
5. Conclusion – optional

IV.Legal Updates

Such an article would analyse, in a descriptive manner, legal updates regarding a certain topic.

Structure:

1. Aim
2. Roadmap
3. Definition- of the institution that has been update through legislation
4. Piece of analysis of the pre-regulation and the post regulation – key elements: present the pre-regulation, state the rationale for the change/the need, present the actual changes, the consequences of the change (look to different stakeholders and analyse the impact for all the people affected by the measure)
5. Conclusion- possible future change/is it going to be better under the new law?/question marks (left unanswered for the reader to reflect upon) for example: how will it work, how will it be applied?

B. ARGUMENTATIVE

I. Status Quo analysis

The author should identify a certain issue/threat of the status quo and offer a solution to the problem. At the same time, the author should provide arguments as to why their proposed solution is good.

Structure:

1. Aim: what does this article aim to prove/argue
2. Roadmap
3. Definitions
4. Ill - state what the problem is
5. Impact of the ill - analyse this from three points of view - qualitative, quantitative and affected stakeholders – how does the problem that you have identify impacts on each of these fields
6. Offer a solution –Tell the readers why the current situation is not enough and why the new one (under your proposed solution) would be better
7. Conclusion

II. Argumentation analysis

This category, and all the sub types, means that such an article would focus on the arguments/perspectives that have been put forward in order to defend/counter a proposal/piece of legislation/institution. The author would add value by filling a gap in literature in terms of the argumentative content introduced in a certain field of analysis. This means that the added value consists in a new line of argumentation or a new perspective which was not approached by the doctrine so far.

II.1. New arguments

Such an article would focus on bringing new arguments pro/con a certain issue. And by new we mean an idea that has not been tackled at all or which has been mentioned, but hasn't been tackled extensively or not in that particular context. This type of article brings value by making one side more convincing than the other through the content it proposes.

Structure:

1. Aim
2. Roadmap
3. Definitions
4. Show what the current debate is now – what is the need for new argumentation, why do academics argue over various aspects (it is sort of a literature review of the status quo)
5. Present your new arguments - identify them/it
6. Show the existing  gap in argumentation in current literature
7. Develop your new arguments
8. Prove the impact of your new arguments over the existing debate - how will it influence it?
9. Indicate possible new lines of argumentation your input might bring - what else can we think of, new implication in proxy domains, etc.
10. Conclusion

II.2. New perspective

This type of article does not aim at bringing a new argument/line of argumentation into an existing debate, but it rather focuses on bringing a new perspective through which to analyse such a debate or an already existing issue/institution. This means to offer a new angle through which the readers should think of a certain issue.

Structure:

1. Aim
2. Roadmap
3. Definitions
4. Show what the current debate is now – what is the need for new argumentation, why do academics argue over various aspects (it is sort of a literature review of the status quo)
5. Present your new perspective - identify it
6. Show the existing  gap in perspective in current literature
7. Develop your perspective
8. Prove the impact of your new perspective over the existing debate - how will it influence it?
9. Indicate possible new lines of argumentation your input might bring - what else can we think of, new implication in proxy domains, etc.
10. Conclusion

A 'new argument' article and a 'new perspective' article are substantially different even if both are argumentative essays. For example, on the death penalty a new argument article would focus on bringing new arguments pro this, such as the breach of the social contract by the person indicted. A new perspective article would take a stance in the debate from a new angle, such as the economic implications of the measure and argue why this perspective is very important to the issue, proving that policy-makers should take it into account. 

II.3. Critique of existing arguments/lines of argumentation

This type of article combines a literature review and a rebuttal (counter argumentation) on a certain topic. The author should focus on identifying the existing arguments/lines of argumentation and then express their critique on this, in an argumentative manner.

Structure:

1. Aim
2. Roadmap
3. Definitions
4. Narrow down the arguments/line of argumentation that you will focus on - it does imply a literature review of the existing arguments, but focus on identifying the ones you will analyse. Pick one and critique
5. Actual Critique - offer arguments to prove that the existing arguments are flawed, ill conceived, false, shallow, etc.
6. Show how it impacts the existing debate
7. Conclusion

If you haven't already, please also check out our section on how to write - technicalities, and best of luck in writing your article!