The Network of Law Reviews: Citation Cartels, Scientific Communities, and Journal Rankings

Oren Perez, J. Bar-Ilan, R. Cohen, N. Schreiber
{"title":"The Network of Law Reviews: Citation Cartels, Scientific Communities, and Journal Rankings","authors":"Oren Perez, J. Bar-Ilan, R. Cohen, N. Schreiber","doi":"10.1111/1468-2230.12405","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Research evaluation is increasingly being influenced by quantitative data. The legal field has not escaped the impact of such metrics. Law schools and legal journals are being ranked by multiple global rankings. The key rankings for law schools are the Times Higher Education and Shanghai University Subject Rankings for law and SSRN Ranking for U.S. and International law schools. Law Journals are measured by four different rankings: Clarivate Analytics Web of Science Journal Citation Reports (JCR), CiteScore from Elsevier, Scimago and Washington and Lee. Despite the opposition from the scientific community these metrics continue to flourish. The article argues journal rankings (as other metrics) are the consequence of theory-laden choices that can influence their structure and their pretense of objectivity is therefore merely illusory. We focus on the influential ranking of law journals in JCR and critically assess its structure and methodology. In particular, we consider the question of the existence of tacit citation cartels in the U.S. law reviews market and the attentiveness of the JCR for the potential influence of such tacit cartel. To examine this question we studied a sample of 90 journals included in the category of Law in the JCR: 45 U.S. student-edited (SE) and 45 peer-reviewed (PR) journals. We found that PR and SE journals are more inclined to cite members of their own class, forming two separated communities. Close analysis revealed that this phenomenon is more pronounced in SE journals, especially generalist ones. This tendency reflects, we argue, a tacit cartelistic behavior, which is a product of deeply entrenched institutional structures. Because U.S. SE journals produce much more citations than PR journals, the fact that their citations are directed almost exclusively to SE journals elevates their ranking in the Journal Citation Reports in a way that distorts the structure of the ranking. This distortion can hamper the production of legal knowledge. We discuss several policy measures that can counter the adverse effects of this situation.","PeriodicalId":330356,"journal":{"name":"Law & Society: The Legal Profession eJournal","volume":"42 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"15","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Law & Society: The Legal Profession eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2230.12405","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 15

Abstract

Research evaluation is increasingly being influenced by quantitative data. The legal field has not escaped the impact of such metrics. Law schools and legal journals are being ranked by multiple global rankings. The key rankings for law schools are the Times Higher Education and Shanghai University Subject Rankings for law and SSRN Ranking for U.S. and International law schools. Law Journals are measured by four different rankings: Clarivate Analytics Web of Science Journal Citation Reports (JCR), CiteScore from Elsevier, Scimago and Washington and Lee. Despite the opposition from the scientific community these metrics continue to flourish. The article argues journal rankings (as other metrics) are the consequence of theory-laden choices that can influence their structure and their pretense of objectivity is therefore merely illusory. We focus on the influential ranking of law journals in JCR and critically assess its structure and methodology. In particular, we consider the question of the existence of tacit citation cartels in the U.S. law reviews market and the attentiveness of the JCR for the potential influence of such tacit cartel. To examine this question we studied a sample of 90 journals included in the category of Law in the JCR: 45 U.S. student-edited (SE) and 45 peer-reviewed (PR) journals. We found that PR and SE journals are more inclined to cite members of their own class, forming two separated communities. Close analysis revealed that this phenomenon is more pronounced in SE journals, especially generalist ones. This tendency reflects, we argue, a tacit cartelistic behavior, which is a product of deeply entrenched institutional structures. Because U.S. SE journals produce much more citations than PR journals, the fact that their citations are directed almost exclusively to SE journals elevates their ranking in the Journal Citation Reports in a way that distorts the structure of the ranking. This distortion can hamper the production of legal knowledge. We discuss several policy measures that can counter the adverse effects of this situation.
法律评论网络:引文卡特尔、科学共同体和期刊排名
研究评价越来越受到定量数据的影响。法律领域也未能逃脱这些指标的影响。法学院和法律期刊正在被多个全球排名所排名。法学院的主要排名是泰晤士高等教育和上海大学的法律学科排名,以及美国和国际法学院的SSRN排名。法律期刊由四个不同的排名来衡量:Clarivate Analytics Web of Science Journal引文报告(JCR)、Elsevier的CiteScore、Scimago和Washington and Lee。尽管遭到科学界的反对,这些指标仍在蓬勃发展。这篇文章认为,期刊排名(和其他指标一样)是充满理论的选择的结果,这些选择会影响期刊的结构,因此,期刊的客观性伪装只是一种幻觉。我们专注于JCR中有影响力的法律期刊排名,并对其结构和方法进行批判性评估。我们特别考虑了美国法律审查市场中存在隐性引文卡特尔的问题,以及JCR对这种隐性卡特尔潜在影响的关注。为了研究这个问题,我们研究了JCR中法律类的90种期刊样本:45种是美国学生编辑的(SE)期刊,45种是同行评议的(PR)期刊。我们发现PR期刊和SE期刊更倾向于引用自己学科的成员,形成了两个独立的群体。仔细分析发现,这种现象在SE期刊中更为明显,尤其是多面手期刊。我们认为,这种趋势反映了一种隐性的卡特尔行为,这是根深蒂固的制度结构的产物。因为美国的SE期刊比PR期刊产生了更多的引用,它们的引用几乎完全指向SE期刊,这一事实提高了它们在期刊引用报告中的排名,从而扭曲了排名的结构。这种扭曲会阻碍法律知识的产生。我们讨论了一些可以抵消这种情况的不利影响的政策措施。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信