‘The problems with law journal rankings’
The following three rankings have been around for a while but I hadn’t really looked at them closely. Indeed, all three attempts are very imperfect. Still, in order to understand the market for law journals it is useful to be aware of them:
- The Australian ranking by the Australian Research Council is available at http://www.arc.gov.au/era/journal_list.htm, but it is better to access it here. They may have got the majority of UK, US, and Australian journals right but, unsurprisingly, they have little interest in European journals.
- The American ranking, available at http://lawlib.wlu.edu/LJ/. For the general ranking tick "rank comb 2008" and submit. This shows a ranking of 1586 journals (!) with an obvious US bias since the ranking is based on citations in US journals and courts. However, it is also possible to rank the journals limited to specific subjects or countries.
- The UK ranking, based on the RAE 2001, is available at http://www.law.stir.ac.uk/research/research-project.php. Here, the natural limitation is that this ranking really only shows where UK academics traditionally publish and not the quality of journals (e.g., it can be seen that UK scholars have hardly published in the top US law reviews). It would be interesting to see whether they do a similar calculation for the RAE 2008.