Jonathan Glater wrote a piece in The New York Times on the perennial question of settlement in litigation.

Glater reports on research showing that plaintiffs in civil suits generally are better off when they accept a settlement offer, instead of going to trial. The research also has a longitudinal aspect, and reportedly shows that, over 40 years, plaintiffs have become worse at deciding whether to settle or to go to trial, in other words choose wrong more often today than they had in the past.

The research, by Kiser, Asher, and McShane, will be published in an article, “Let’s Not Make a Deal: An Empirical Analysis of Decision Making in Unsuccessful Settlement Negotiations, ” in the Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, in September 2008.

I liked Glater’s article and find the research interesting, but I’m frustrated by the way it’s delivered, with a tease.

Academic journals have peer review processes (that take time and require confidentiality if review can lead to meaningful improvements) and editorial deadlines (driven by printing and distribution constraints, as well as the promise to put out content at specified intervals). But in this case, interested readers –who are neither peer reviewers nor journalists privileged with a sneak peek– have to wait until the September issue of this law review goes on sale (or reaches the shelves of the local law library).

Discussing work that remains veiled doesn’t contribute to academic discourse or to practical application. Asking me to wait a month after learning about research deflates my willingness to follow up on this.

Online tools make it possible to disseminate and discuss new work rapidly, and to reach clusters of new readers. They should be used more often, especially by academics.