August 20, 2016

Law schools with the highest percentage of "most-cited" tenured faculty, 2010-2014 (CORRECTED 8/20)

Over the last several months, we've compiled "top ten" or "top twenty" lists of "most-cited" faculty (based on the Sisk data) in the following areas of scholarship:   Constitutional & Public Law; Administrative and/or Environmental Law; Criminal Law & Procedure; Commercial Law; Corporate Law/Securities Regulation; Torts; Property; Civil Procedure; Evidence; Tax; Antitrust; Legal Ethics/Legal Profession; International Law; Intellectual Property/Cyberlaw; Family Law; Law & Economics; Legal History; Law & Philosophy; Law & Social Science (excluding economics); and Critical Theories of Law.

Below, any school with at least three faculty on these lists are ranked by the percentage of tenured faculty (based on the Sisk count) who appeared in some "most cited" list (each faculty member is counted but once, even if they appeared on more than one list). 

Rank

School

Tenured Faculty in Sisk study

# of Highly-Cited

Faculty

% faculty highly-cited

1

University of Chicago

29

14

48%

 

Yale University

46

22

48%

3

Harvard University

82

30

37%

4

New York University

82

26

32%

 

University of California, Berkeley

53

17

32%

6

Columbia University

73

22

30%

7

Stanford University

49

14

29%

8

University of Pennsylvania

43

11

26%

9

Duke University

40

10

25%

 

University of California, Irvine

24

  6

25%

 

Vanderbilt University

32

  8

25%

12

University of California, Los Angeles

54

13

24%

13

Cornell University

35

  8

23%

14

Northwestern University

34

  6

18%

15

University of Michigan, Ann Arbor

47

  8

17%

 

University of Minnesota

46

  8

17%

17

George Washington University

66

  9

14%

 

Georgetown University

81

11

14%

19

Case Western Reserve University

23

  3

13%

 

George Mason University

31

  4

13%

21

University of California, Hastings

38

  4

11%

 

University of Southern California

28

  3

11%

 

University of Texas, Austin

65

  7

11%

 

University of Virginia

66

  7

11%

 

Wake Forest University

28

  3

11%

26

Brooklyn Law School

33

  3

  9%

27

Boston University

36

  3

  8%

 

Fordham University

53

  4

  8%

 

Ohio State University

36

  3

  8%

 

University of San Diego

37

  3

  8%

 

 Other schools with at least two tenured faculty on the most-cited lists were:   American University; University of Hawaii; University of California, Davis; Arizona State University; University of Arizona; Emory University; University of Illinois; Washington University, St. Louis; Cardozo Law School/Yeshiva University; Indiana University/Bloomington; Temple University; University of North Carolina/Chapel Hill.


August 20, 2016 in Faculty News, Rankings | Permalink

10 Most-Cited Family Law Faculty, 2010-2014 (inclusive) [CORRECTED; first posted 7/27]

Once again, this draws on the data from the 2015 Sisk study:    

Rank

Name

School

Citations

Age in 2016

1

Martha Fineman

Emory University

  580

66

2

Naomi Cahn

George Washington University

  540

58

3

Elizabeth Scott

Columbia University

  520

71

4

Lynn Wardle

Brigham Young University

  380

69

5

Mark Strasser

Capital University

  360

61

6

June Carbone

University of Minnesota

  340

62

 

Nancy Polikoff

American University

  340

64

 

Robin Wilson

University of Illinois

  340

48

9

Joanna Grossman

Southern Methodist University

  310

48

10

Kerry Abrams

University of Virginia

  260

45

 

Susan Appleton

Washington University, St. Louis

  260

68

   

Runners-up:

   
 

Jill Hasday

University of Minnesota

  250

44

 

Carol Sanger

Columbia University

  250

68

   

Other highly-cited scholars who work partly in this area

   
 

Martha Minow

Harvard University

1160

62

 

Janet Halley

Harvard University

  420

64

 

Katharine Bartlett

Duke University

  380

69

 

Mary Anne Case

University of Chicago

  330

59

 

I Glenn Cohen

Harvard University

  320

38


August 20, 2016 in Faculty News, Rankings | Permalink

August 12, 2016

Coming next week...

...a ranking of schools by the percentage of their tenured faculty that made it on to the most-cited faculty lists we've been publishing (based on the Sisk data).


August 12, 2016 in Faculty News, Rankings | Permalink

August 08, 2016

10 Most-Cited Legal Ethics/Legal Profession Faculty, 2010-2014 (inclusive)

Once again, this draws on the data from the 2015 Sisk study:  

Rank

Name

School

Citations

Age in 2016

1

Deborah Rhode

Stanford University

1080

64

2

David Luban

Georgetown University

  930

67

3

William Simon

Columbia University

  630

69

4

Bruce Green

Fordham University

  530

61

5

David Wilkins

Harvard University

  440

60

6

William Henderson, Jr.

Indiana University, Bloomington

  400

54

7

Stephen Gillers

New York University

  330

73

8

W. Bradley Wendel

Cornell University

  280

47

9

Peter Margulies

Roger Williams University

  260

60

 

Russell Pearce

Fordham University

  260

60

   

Other highly-cited scholars who work partly in this area

   
 

Ronald Rotunda

Chapman University

  590

71

 

Robert W. Gordon

Stanford University

  520

75

 

Richard Painter

University of Minnesota

  310

54


August 8, 2016 in Faculty News, Rankings | Permalink

August 02, 2016

More on the uselessness of ranking law reviews by Google Scholar h-indices

The other day I remarked on what should have been obvious, namely, that Google Scholar rankings of law reviews by impact are nonsense, providing prospective authors with no meaningful information about the relative impact of publishing an article in comparable law reviews.  (Did you know that it's better to publish in the Fordham Law Review for impact than in the Duke Law Journal?)  The reason is simple:  the Google Scholar rankings do not adjust for the volume of output--law reviews that turn out more issues and articles each year will rank higher than otherwise comparable law reviews (with actual comparable impact) simply because of the volume of output.

When Google Scholar rankings of philosophy journals first came out, a journal called Synthese came out #1.  Synthese is a good journal, but it was obviously nonsense that the average impact of an article there was greater than any of the actual top journals in philosophy.   The key fact about Synthese is that it publishes five to ten times as many articles per year than the top philosophy journals.   When another philosopher adjusted the Google Scholar results for volume of publication, Synthese dropped from #1 to #24.

Alas, various law professors have dug in their heels trying to explain that this nonsense Google Scholar ranking of law reviews is not, in fact, affected by volume of output.  I was initially astonished, but now see that many na├»ve enthusiasts apparently do not not understand the metrics and do not realize how sloppy Google Scholar is in terms of what it picks up. 

Let's start with the formula Google Scholar uses in its journal rankings:

The h-index of a publication is the largest number h such that at least h articles in that publication were cited at least h times each. For example, a publication with five articles cited by, respectively, 17, 9, 6, 3, and 2, has the h-index of 3.

The h-core of a publication is a set of top cited h articles from the publication. These are the articles that the h-index is based on. For example, the publication above has the h-core with three articles, those cited by 17, 9, and 6.

The h-median of a publication is the median of the citation counts in its h-core. For example, the h-median of the publication above is 9. The h-median is a measure of the distribution of citations to the articles in the h-core.

Finally, the h5-index, h5-core, and h5-median of a publication are, respectively, the h-index, h-core, and h-median of only those of its articles that were published in the last five complete calendar years.

Obviously, any journal that publishes more articles per year has more chances of publishing highly-cited articles, which then affects both the h-core result and the h-median result.  But that's only part of the problem, though that problem is real and obvious enough.   The much more serious problem is that Google Scholar picks up a lot of "noise," i.e., citations that aren't really citations.  So, for example, Google Scholar records as a citation any reference to the contents of the law review in an index of legal periodicals.  Any journal that publishes more issues will appear more often in such indices obviously.   Google Scholar picks up self-references in a journal to the articles it has published in a given year.   Google Scholar even picks up SSRN "working paper series" postings in which all other articles by someone on a faculty are also listed at the end as from that school.   (Google Scholar gradually purges some of these fake cites, but it takes a long time.)   Volume of publication inflates a journal's "impact" ranking because Google Scholar is not as discerning as some law professors think.


August 2, 2016 in Advice for Academic Job Seekers, Of Academic Interest, Professional Advice, Rankings | Permalink

July 26, 2016

Annals of "bullshit" rankings

Rankings are fun, sure, but it's good to figure out wheter the metric means something (anything!) lest one produce nonsense.  Case in point:  ranking law reviews by Google Scholar h-indices.  The problem (we've encountered it in philosophy in the past, but now everyone there knows Google  Scholar is worthless for measuring journal impact) is that there is no control for the volume of publishing by each journal, so any journal that publishes more pages and articles per year will do better than a peer journal with the same actual impact that publishes fewer articles and pages.

UPDATE:  In the case of philosophy, Synthese was the number 1 journal in "impact" according to the nonsense Google number--this was obviously ludicrous, as everyone in academic philosophy knew.  But Synthese also publishes five to ten times as many articles per year as the actual leading journals in the field.  One philosopher adjusted the results for volume of publication, and lo and behold, Synthese rank fell dramatically.


July 26, 2016 in Rankings | Permalink

July 25, 2016

Most-Cited lists: what's coming

Two more subject-matter areas:  Family Law and Legal Ethics/Legal Profession/Professional Responsibility.  And then a list of schools by the per capita rate at which their tenured faculty made one of the many most-cited lists.   I should have these lists out by mid-August at the latest.


July 25, 2016 in Faculty News, Rankings | Permalink

July 21, 2016

Ten Most-Cited Antitrust Faculty, 2010-2014 (inclusive)

  Once again, this draws on the data from the 2015 Sisk study:    

Rank

Name

School

Citations

Age in 2016

1

Herbert Hovenkamp

University of Iowa

1070

68

2

Daniel Crane

University of Michigan

  400

46

3

William Kovacic

George Washington University

  390

64

 

Joshua Wright

George Mason University

  390

39

5

Michael Carrier

Rutgers University (Camden)

  370

47

6

Christopher Leslie

University of California, Irvine

  340

52

 

Daniel Rubinfeld

New York University

  340

71

8

C. Scott Hemphill

New York University

  310

43

9

Spencer Waller

Loyola University, Chicago

  280

59

10

Timothy Muris

George Mason University

  250

67

   

Runners-up for the top ten

   
 

Jonathan Baker

American University

  240

61

 

Fred McChesney

University of Miami

  240

68

 

William Page

University of Florida

  240

65

   

Other highly-cited scholars who work partly in this area

   
 

Mark Lemley

Stanford University

2400

50

 

Louis Kaplow

Harvard University

1150

60

 

Einer Elhauge

Harvard University

  680

55

 

George Priest

Yale University

  570

63

 

Keith Hylton

Boston University

  440

56

 


July 21, 2016 in Faculty News, Rankings | Permalink

July 18, 2016

Ten Most-Cited Torts/Products Liability/Insurance Law Faculty, 2010-2014 (inclusive)

 Once again, this draws on the data from the 2015 Sisk study:   

 

Rank

Name

School

Citations

Age in 2016

1

John C.P. Goldberg

Harvard University

  550

55

2

Benjamin Zipursky

Fordham University

  470

56

3

Tom Baker

University of Pennsylvania

  450

57

4

Robert Rabin

Stanford University

  410

77

5

Catherine Sharkey

New York University

  400

46

6

Kenneth Abraham

University of Virginia

  350

70

7

Anita Bernstein

Brooklyn Law School

  290

55

 

Stephen Sugarman

University of California, Berkeley

  290

74

9

David Rosenberg

Harvard University

  270

73 (est.)

10

Michael Green

Wake Forest University

  240

66

   

Other highly-cited scholars who work partly in these areas

   
 

Richard Epstein

New York University; University of Chicago

2680

73

 

Steven Shavell

Harvard University

1340

70

 

Saul Levmore

University of Chicago

  550

63

 

Keith Hylton

Boston University

  440

56


July 18, 2016 in Faculty News, Rankings | Permalink

July 06, 2016

Most-Cited Critical Theory Law Faculty, 2010-2014 (inclusive)

This includes faculty who work in critical race theory, feminist legal theory, and critical legal studies (though the latter has been moribund for some time).  Once again, this draws on the data from the 2015 Sisk study:   

Rank

Name

School

Citations

Age in 2016

1

Martha Minow

Harvard University

1160

62

2

Richard Delgado

University of Alabama

  860

76

3

Catharine MacKinnon

University of Michigan

  730

70

4

Kimberle Crenshaw

Columbia University; University of

California, Los Angeles

  650

57

5

Robin West

Georgetown University

  610

62

6

Martha Fineman

Emory University

  580

66

7

Michelle Alexander

Ohio State University

  550

49

8

Angela Harris

University of California, Davis

  540

55

9

Joan Williams

University of California, Hastings

  530

64

10

Jerry Kang

University of California, Los Angeles

  520

48

 

Dorothy Roberts

University of Pennsylvania

  520

60

12

Lani Guinier

Harvard University

  500

66

13

Charles Lawrence

University of Hawaii

  490

73

14

Ian Haney Lopez

University of California, Berkeley

  470

52

15

Devon Carbado

University of California, Los Angeles

  460

50

16

Elizabeth Schneider

Brooklyn Law School

  450

68

17

Randall Kennedy

Harvard University

  430

62

18

Charles Ogletree

Harvard University

  410

64

19

Katharine Bartlett

Duke University

  380

69

20

Katherine Franke

Columbia University

  370

57

   

Runner-up for the top twenty

   
 

Ruth Colker

Ohio State University

  360

60

   

Other highly-cited scholars who work partly in critical theories of law

   
 

Mark Tushnet

Harvard University

1880

71

 

Jack Balkin

Yale University

1710

59

 

Deborah Rhode

Stanford University

1080

64

 

G. Mitu Gulati

Duke University

  860

50

 


July 6, 2016 in Faculty News, Rankings | Permalink