Citation lists going forward (IMPORTANT UPDATE)

Going forward, I won't produce any "most cited" ordinal lists in specialty areas when the citation total for the five-year period is below 300.  Partly this is for reasons of time, but partly it is that I'm skeptical that as the citation numbers get smaller, ordinal differences are very meaningful.   That means for some of the "low citation" fields, I'll be more likely to list "top five" than "top ten."  As in the past, I will also list up to five highly cited scholars who work partly in the field in question, but only if they have more citations than the least-cited scholar on the ordinal list (e.g., the 5th, 10th or 20th-cited scholar). 

A further difficulty is that Sisk et al. were not able to correct this time for et al. citations to multi-author casebooks, which matters in areas like torts and property.  So I may not do those lists at all this time around.

More "most cited" lists coming soon.

UPDATE:   Thoughtful advice from a Dean elsewhere persuaded me that limiting the most-cited lists, as I proposed above, was a disservice to younger (and thus, on average, more diverse) scholars, since the tops of the lists are dominated by faculty in their 50s, 60s and 70s (with occasional exceptions).  Given the importance these lists have acquired, it seems worth the extra effort to make them reasonably complete.  This means it will take longer to produce them, and there will probably be increased need to post "corrected" lists, since oversights at the bottom of each list are more likely.  I appreciate those readers who take time to send corrections, and I am grateful for constructive advice like that from the Dean who persuaded me my original plan was a mistake.