March 23, 2022
Back in 2009, and it's still true.
March 23, 2022 in Deja vu all over again (reposting of earlier items of interest), Rankings | Permalink
March 21, 2022
...and one can rest assured that U.S. legal education-- which is run by a defunct news magazine with a website--will adjust accordingly. One change will be a boon for law libraries: 1% of the score (why 1%? no one knows, not even Bob Morse) now consists in the ratio of full-time law librarians to students at a school. That metric will also exacerbate the general bias in many aspects of the USNews.com formula that favors smaller schools over larger ones, due to economies of scale. Bar passage rates will also account for 3% rather than 2.25% (why not 10% or 15%? no one knows, and certainly not Bob Morse), but will take into account how a school's graduates perform across jurisdictions. If one is going to count bar passage rates, then that at least makes some sense, even if the relative weighting is inexplicable.
Unknown at the time of this writing is which other factors in the ranking stew had their weight reduced.
March 14, 2022
This is a complement to the original Sisk study of scholarly impact for the period 2016-2020. As many readers have noted, the scholarly impact of many schools depends on their older faculty. Using the Sisk data, we looked at the ten most-cited faculty under age 60 in 2021, calculating the weighted score the same way as in the original study: the mean score times two, plus the median. Some schools--Chicago, Harvard, NYU, Berkeley, Michigan--performed comparably (or slightly better, or slightly worse) in this study as in the original study of all tenured faculty, regardless of age. But other schools under-performed--for example, Yale and Stanford--suggesting that their "scholarly impact" performance depends heavily on an "old guard," as it were. Some other schools outperformed their overall rank noticeably--UCLA and Virginia, for example--suggesting they are going to be likely recruitment targets for other law schools.
Time permitting, we'll try to expand this beyond the top 15.
Full results below the fold:
March 07, 2022
"Web of Science" may record "impact" in some disciplines, but not necessarily *inter*disciplinary impact
Kevin Gerson, the Director of the law library at UCLA, writes:
You’ve noted several issues with the Vanderbilt scholarly impact study. I’d like to add to the list another issue with interdisciplinary scholarly impact studies.
A non-law article written by someone currently on a law faculty may not, by those facts alone, be widely regarded as “interdisciplinary” with law. Take, for example, this article: The 1000 Genomes Project Consortium, A map of human genome variation from population-scale sequencing, Nature 467, 1061–1073 (2010), https://doi.org/10.1038/nature09534. This article is purely computational genomics. It has had no impact on legal scholarship, yet one of its scientist/authors currently sits on a law school faculty. The article in Web of Science shows over 5300 citations, which would make that particular author one of the most cited legal scholars of all time if the article is included in measuring legal scholarly impact. The irony is that the other 400+ authors of that article would also be considered among the most impactful legal scholars of all time by virtue of that single article as long as they could get a joint appointment on a law faculty. That seems like an undesirable outcome.
March 03, 2022
One thing this study is not is a study of "interdisciplinary impact," for three reasons: (1) the Web of Science has better coverage of some disciplines than others; (2) citation practices vary dramatically across disciplines; and (3) the study only looked at articles published in Web of Science journals that were published and cited during 2012-2018 (books, the major form of scholarly impact in most humanities disciplines, counted for nought here). The weird skew should be obvious from the fact that the two most-cited scholars (Lawrence Gostin at Georgetown and Susan M. Wolf at Minnesota) both work in health law and bioethics: that's either because medical and medicine-related journals are wildly overrepresented in the database (which looks to be true), or because much more of the scholarly literature is based on articles that were cited by other articles during that period. (Four of the top ten faculty on their list work in or around health law--indeed, health law and bioethics faculty are wildly over-represented in the top fifty.)
Professor Gostin, helpfully, has a Google Scholar page, and he does indeed have a lot of citations (more than 36,000!). My colleague, the philosopher Martha Nussbaum, who publishes many books as well as articles, largely in philosophy and classics journals (which are not well-represented in Web of Science), does not have a Google Scholar page, but you can get a sense of her Google Scholar citations here. Her first ten most cited works have over 60,000 citations: that's just the first ten. I haven't tallied all her citations, but I looked at several pages of her Google Scholar results, and I can say with some confidence that she has at least four times as many citations as Professor Gostin. Yet Nussbaum is not even in the top 50 in the Vanderbilt study!
All citation studies have limitations due to their database. But Web of Science is wholly inadequate for measuring interdisciplinary impact, as the stunning Nussbuam example reveals. I would describe this as more a measure of impact for those who work in fields adjacent to the medical sciences, including health law, bioethics, psychology, etc.
February 17, 2022
An important fact about interpreting citation data is that citation rates vary quite a bit by field. One can see all the subject-specific citation lists for the latest Sisk study (2016-2020) here.
Of the ten most-cited faculty in the U.S. in the last Sisk study, eight worked at least partly in constitutional law. Indeed, constitutional law is the most high-citation field, although corporate, law & economics, criminal law & procedure, law & technology, and intellectual property also get cited a lot. By contrast, tax, evidence, and health law, among others, are low-citation fields. 300 cites in a five-year period will get you into the top five in tax, but not anywhere close to the top 20 in constitutional law (maybe the top 50?).
Here's the fields ranked from highest to lowest citations based on the sum of the cites for the scholar ranked first, fifth and tenth in each area (those totals follow in parentheses).
1. Constitutional Law (4,880 citations)
2. Law & Economics (3,350 citations)
3. Intellectual Property (2,900 citations)
4. Corporate Law & Securities Regulation (2,440 citations)
5. Criminal Law & Procedure (2,290 citations)
6. Law & Technology (2,040 citations)
7. Law & Social Science (1,980 citations)
8. Administrative and/or Environmental Law (1,910 citations)
9. International Law & Security (1,900 citations)
10. Critical Theories of Law (1,870 citations)
February 16, 2022
Links to all the 2021 Scholarly Impact ranking posts (final version) (for citations during 2016-2020)
February 10, 2022
(An alert reader pointed out I had missed this category in my earlier postings of most-cited lists.)
Based on the latest Sisk data, here are the ten most-cited law faculty working in legal ethics/legal profession/professional responsibility in the U.S. for the period 2016-2020 (inclusive) (remember that the data was collected in late May/early June of 2021, and that the pre-2021 database did expand a bit since then). Numbers are rounded to the nearest ten. Faculty for whom roughly 75% or more of their citations (based on a sample) are in this area are listed; others with less than 75% of their citations in this field (but still a plurality) are listed in the category of "other highly cited scholars who work partly in this area."
December 13, 2021
Lawprof Scott Dodson (Hastings) kindly shared a list of faculty under the age of 50 who have appeared on the "most-cited" lists for the period 2016-2020. Law schools with three or more faculty on the "under 50" list are: Chicago (7), Harvard (7), Yale (7), Georgetown (6), NYU (5), William & Mary (3). On a per capita basis (as a percentage of the tenured faculty at each school), the top five schools are:
1. University of Chicago (18%)
2. Yale University (14%)
3. College of William & Mary (11%)
4. Harvard University (8%)
5. Georgetown University (7%)
December 06, 2021
Sam Buell (Duke), a former federal prosecutor and criminal law expert, writes:
I was amused by your post about Porat and Temple. Last year on the exam in my Corporate Crime course I gave the students the Porat indictment and asked them to analyze the case. No winning defense available, of course, but many of the students rightly explored the possibility of using the issue of USN’s many opacities and faults as a complicating argument, either on the issue of materiality or on the issue of intent to defraud. (Almost every corporate crime involves some kind of private or public regulatory body which can be blamed for not doing its job and essentially creating the opportunity for the criminality.) I also asked the students to analyze the question of whether a prosecutor should consider charging Temple or at least requiring them to enter into some kind of settlement with remedial measures. Lots to say there.