As the fall law review submission season heats up, everyone faces a bewilderingly vast array of different law reviews. How should one compare an offer from from a specialty journal to a mainline law review? How do the US News Law School rankings compare to journal quality? Until recently, there were few good answers.
As is the case for most things, however, Google has ridden to the rescue with Google Scholar Metrics, which produces a ranking of journals based on citations to recent articles in Google Scholar.
I wrote about Google's rankings for 2013 in a previous post, ranking law reviews using the H5 index as ranked by Google. In another post, I used Google's rankings to list the most cited articles in top-20 journals. Google has updated its Scholar Metrics database, which allows a more current ranking.
In this post, I have used the more recent Google data to rank the journals using the average of the H5 index and the H5 median, which seems to give more balanced and less volatile results. For more details on these measures, see my original post on the Google Rankings.
The first table ranks main law school law reviews only, while the second (longer) table ranks specialty and some peer-reviewed journals along with the law reviews. There are some pretty serious differences in a few cases from US News rankings. For example, the University of Chicago Law Review comes in 18th and the Southern California Law Review comes in 35th. Whether Google has captured some measure of quality independent of US News rankings? Or are the deviations due to methodological blips? I leave the dissection exercise for the comments.
As always, please feel free to contact me with any corrections or omissions, and please refrain from shooting the messenger. Continue reading for the first table...