The overrepresentation of the United States in the field of legal studies in the science-wide author databases of standardized citation indicators

Abstract

This paper investigates the overrepresentation of U.S.-based scholars in legal studies, focusing on patterns observed in the 2024 Ioannidis Science-wide author databases of standardized citation indicators. The study examines key differences between U.S. and non-U.S. scholars regarding citation metrics, publication patterns, and journal selection, while also evaluating the broader implications of this dominance on the global dissemination of legal knowledge. Via data from Scopus, the study analyzes 766 scholars and their 50,463 publications across both single-year and career-long datasets. The results reveal a marked U.S. dominance, with U.S.-based scholars not only comprising a large share of the dataset but also achieving top-ranking positions across various metrics. U.S. scholars predominantly publish in prestigious American law journals tied to Ivy League institutions, often resulting in higher citation counts and visibility than their non-U.S. counterparts. Conversely, non-U.S. scholars are more likely to publish in international or European journals, which generally yield lower citation metrics. Our results suggest that American legal scholarship maintains a citation ecosystem that reinforces its central position in the field, often sidelining Global South perspectives. These findings should also be interpreted in light of the substantial U.S.-bias inherent in the Scopus-indexed data underpinning the Stanford list, which structurally privileges U.S.-based publication formats and legal venues.