In the process of selecting my law review note topic and wanted to start a discussion on what makes a good one versus a bad one. I've heard conflicting advice from professors and upperclassmen.
The main tension I keep running into: professors push toward doctrinal gaps or circuit splits (something that hasn't been resolved yet), while some older students tell me the most publishable notes are narrowly focused applied pieces on a very specific issue in a developing area.
My draft topic is something in the AI and IP space — specifically whether AI-generated works can satisfy the "original authorship" requirement for copyright registration after Thaler v. Perlmutter. It's current, there's a genuine unresolved circuit question developing, and I can actually read and understand the technical background.
Concerns: (a) the area is moving so fast that my note might be overtaken by events before it publishes, and (b) everyone is writing in this space right now so the market is crowded.
How did others pick their topics? And for those who published — what made the difference between a note that got picked up and one that didn't?