What are the National Law Journal Rankings?
What are national law journal rankings? National law journal rankings are statistical indicators for assessing the quantity and diversity of articles published by academic law schools in particular subjects of law. Because the journals represent both a general and a national academic media, their law review rankings are much appreciated in the legal profession and academia which tend to consider them as significant references for assessing the academic quality of a particular law school, as well as for potential matters of hiring or promotion of academics. Thus , for instance, it is finally for the subject to be covered or featured on an academic journal that the latter seeks to hire upon its graduates and the school provide us with job plans that are likewise conditioned to these issues. In this context, the law review rankings are the most important because such rankings reflect the highest number of articles published in comparison to other law schools in a given discipline, thereby indicating the extent of the journal’s national circulation and reputation overall with academic lawyers.
Ranking Criteria for Law Reviews
When ranking law journals, we take into account a number of key criteria that help us determine the overall quality and relevance of the various publications. We evaluate factors such as submission guidelines, impact factor, peer review system, and readership.
For effective rankings, it is important to have clear submission guidelines that inform authors on how and when they can submit their work for consideration. A journal with specific submission guidelines and transparent criteria for selection will be favored over a journal with vague or nonexistent submission guidelines. In addition, those journals with defined, structured guidelines that are easy to follow will be considered superior for our list of journals.
Following submission guidelines, we analyze the impact factor of the journal in relation to other publications within its subject area. A journal with a high impact factor is deemed to be more significant than those with a low impact factor, since it suggests a high level of citation by other publications. The impact factor is often depended upon in academic circles as a citation metric. It is calculated by dividing the number of annually cited articles in a journal by the number of articles published in a given time frame. An impact factor of 1.0 means that on average, every article published is cited by another article in the journal. The lower the number, the less significant the publication, which is why we strive to only include reputable journals.
The peer review process is another key consideration. We believe that forcing a journal to use a peer-review process is an unfair burden that could remove them from the list. A peer-reviewed journal does not necessarily assign a value to a journal since there are an increasing number of journals that have chosen to publish their work without using peer review. The results could be very confusing, as peer-reviewed journals could end up with lower ratings than non-reviewed journals.
Another important factor that we considered when ranking law journals is the readership demographics of the journals that we evaluate. We look at factors such as the number of current subscribers to a particular journal, the availability of back issues of a journal, and the distribution of that journal. In addition, we assess the number of detractors for a particular journal. A single journal may be relied upon or looked down upon by one group while the opposite holds true for another. We ignore the opinions of the former group and embrace the views of the latter.
The Highest Ranked National Law Journals
The top law journals in the national rankings continue to be led by the top even after controversy over how the U.S. News and World Report law school rankings methodology used citations as a factor. The articles they publish, however, are among the most cited or influential in the legal arena currently being tracked. In addition, these journals have the highest acceptance rates.
Berkeley Journal of International Law is currently the top-ranked journal in the combined Washington and Lee and Florida State law journal rankings. This journal has submitted itself to the US News law school rankings for years and was ranked sixth overall in 2014. BJIL was the first legal journal to appear online in 1990 and has been online only since 2013 with the tagline "online, Open Access, Open Mind." It is a triple-blind journal that accepts submissions from non-students and students.
California Law Review was first published in 1912. It began publishing articles by faculty and students in 1936. It is the longest running publication of any law school journal. It currently has an impact factor of 1.06. Its current acceptance rate is 11.2 percent.
Virginia Law Review is a theoretical law review that started in 1914. Its editorial style reflects a blend of theoretical, historical and practical approaches to law. Its current acceptance rate is 8.3 percent. Virginia Law Review changed the peer review process for law reviews in 2007-18 by creating an online platform for peer review. Its status as a law review allows them to be eligible for the many law review competitions. The journal only accepts electronic submissions of articles and books.
Harvard Law Review began publishing in 1887 and has been publishing its articles online since 1993. The first Harvard Law Review Association president was former U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Edward Douglass White. 65 percent of the contents of each issue are dedicated to book reviews. The annual symposium issue is dedicated to an analysis of that year’s U.S. Supreme Court opinions. The journal has an acceptance rate of 6 percent and an impact factor of 1.04. It is the oldest law journal in continuous publication.
University of Chicago Law Review began publishing in 1933. It has been publishing exclusively online since 1991. University of Chicago Law Review also has an informal group of 30 faculty, who in addition to their roles as faculty twice a year select an article from among every major submission that is deferred for status consideration. The selection is done by a two-step process. The Law Review’s editorial board must approve the article, then a faculty member must agree to publish the essay. The acceptance rate for this journal is 10.9 percent. The editors at the University of Chicago also prepare an annual symposium analyzing one U.S. Supreme Court decision. A group of three different current second-year law students selects the theme. The symposium is tied to the annual Andrew D. Lourie Lecture, which is presented one of the largest lecture halls at the Law School. AFM 7.62 percent of the submissions received by the Law Review win publication.
Columbia Law Review began in 1901 and became a program of Columbia Law School in 1949. Columbia Law School is one of the top 14 law schools. The journal publishes an annual survey of federal courts. Its current acceptance rate is 11.02 percent. This year, the journal added an annual companion to the regular journal, called the Contemporary Issues in Law and Business.
How Rankings Affect Research and Careers
The rankings produced by the National Law Journal have a profound impact on the field, helping legal researchers, practitioners, and academic careers alike. These lists not only determine where to publish their work, but also provide an avenue for new ideas to reach their intended audiences. Joining a top-tier journal, moreover, also carries a certain prestige that candidates for clerkships, fellowships, and faculty appointments find attractive. The number of publishing opportunities available in the various journals suggests that the latter may actually outweigh the former. "For many people, law review articles, particularly the flagship ones, often can be the most important publication they will produce in their legal career," explained Natalie Pifer, Senior Law Librarian at the University of Pennsylvania Law School. "Unlike members of the other professions, lawyers do not produce books. Law reviews are not commonly read by lawyers. Pick one up," she remarked, "and you are as likely to see an article by a law professor as a practitioner." "The editors and deans I work with acknowledge that law journal membership gets your work more attention, and demonstrates an interest in scholarly research," said Miriam A. Cherry, a professor of Law at St. Louis University School of Law. In her interview with us, she also expressed the hope that the National Law Journal rankings will "result in internal discussions about law review placement at the schools." She pointed out that that the methodology for the journal rankings places weight on the size of a law journal’s membership and its faculty usage. More members mean that there are more readers. As an example of the positive ramifications, she remarked, "Since I published in Environment Law and Technology (Oxford), I’ve received hundreds of emails from students, faculty, and private citizens. These emails are incredible, and the publication itself has changed my practice – people came out of the woodwork to speak with me about my work. I would have never expected that." Notably, Professor Cherry also revealed that she had been invited to speak at the University of Oxford as a result of that publication.
Law Review Rankings Trends Over Time
When looking at the trends, a few prominent national law journals seem to have caught everyone’s attention in recent years. One of them is the Harvard Law Review. At some point, it decided to focus more on scholarship and less on practical knowledge. As a result, the journal featured scant articles on relevant legal practice, including the law surrounding nonprofit organizations. That imbalance may have prompted some nonprofit legal practitioners (such as my law firm) to stop submitting articles for publication. That may also explain the surge of law journal articles submitted by nonprofits to the UC Davis Business Law Journal, whose board of editors recently produced a symposium edition focusing on such scholarship.
Another trend observed in the past few years is an expansion of criteria over which law journals now operate. For example, the Denver Journal of International Law and Policy has become well known beyond the traditional scope of scholarship that focuses on international law. The journal has delved into cyberspace law with articles from scholar-lawyers measuring the impact of mobile electronic devices on their work performance . In addition to its standard Miami and New York chapters, the University of Miami International and Comparative Law Review now has a Washington chapter, thanks to attorney Michael Dolich. It remains to be seen whether the frequencies in which these law journals published their articles will continue to expand.
An evident trend among online law journals is the increase in the number of highly specialized journals, including law journals focusing on home and family law, consumer law, and technology in the workplace. I am currently writing for San Diego International Law Journal to deliver an article on hard-to-obtain naming rights, and expect it to be one of many such articles published in law journals interested in highly specialized subjects. It is hoped that law journals will not lose track of the need for providing a practical focus to their articles.
Lastly, another noteworthy trend over the past few years is the rapid emergence of new law journals focusing on technology law. The Journal of High Technology Law is one of them.
How to Choose a Journal in Which to Publish
Picking the right journal to publish your article can be a daunting task. It should go without saying that aiming high will work out better than aiming low—so long as what you have written is acceptable for your target publication. If you are shooting for a top-50 law review, you want to start with a better than top-50 quality article. But assuming that you have something publishable, how do you pick a target publication? The National Law Journal is not in the business of deciding whether your article is good enough. However, we can offer some tips on how to choose.
There are a number of considerations, of course. Who reads the journals? Is the article of interest to practitioners, academics, experts in the field, or policymakers? Or is it likely to attract outsiders to the field? What will it take to get the attention of your ideal readers? What are you trying to get out of publication, and what do you want them to do with your work when it is done?
For an article on how best to pick a law journal, the most obvious considerations are scope of readership and reputation. Both of these factors are largely defined by where a journal falls in the National Law Journal ranking of law reviews. A journal that comes in at, say, 40, is more likely to have the ideal readership for your article than one came in at 140. Reputation is trickier; it depends somewhat on the readership. Some journals with lower rankings have higher profile among the particular audience that you are writing for. An article on legal ethics will attract more attention in a journal that focuses on that subject matter, even at the cost of scope.
Beyond these considerations, scope and reputation, look for journals that focus on your article’s subject matter. If you are writing a narrow article on an obscure legal doctrine, you probably don’t want a journal that covers the waterfront. If, however, your subject is broad, you may benefit from a journal with a big staff, as such journals often provide a wider array of peer review. For an article on a topical subject, such as gun control, you may want a journal that provides many views from different angles. Articles that address a specific interest, such as wage hour laws, are likely to be run in highly specialized journals.
As with anything, the best way to get noticed is to follow directions, so be sure to pay attention to each journal’s submission guidelines. For example, do they require a hard copy? Is there a restriction on simultaneous submissions, or do they require exclusivity? Some journals only publish articles if they are still in vogue at the time the issue comes out, which may disqualify your article quickly.
National Law Review Rankings: Critiques and Alternatives
While current national law journal rankings may be the target of some controversy, there are no shortage of flaws in each of the methodologies. For example, the US News & World Report law school rankings include far too many raw data points in the rankings factor into their rankings to be of much value. Furthermore, the US News Rankings, in evaluations that are particularly vulnerable to bias, weight "peer ratings" of each school as an enormous 25% of the weighting of its ranking. Other problems include their view of "scholarly output," which is almost entirely limited to citation data (i.e., the most recognized and widely circulated legal works). This means that every area of law not seen as receiving "scholarly" attention suffers. And while the factors themselves may have merit, they are conflicting in certain areas. For example, the vagaries of sheer size permit more recognition for larger institutions, while smaller institutions that offer more "education" per student suffer.
Alternatives do exist, however. Writing for the Legal Writing Institute , Professor Michael Rich has suggested a "Ranking of Scholarly Quality and Significance (RoSQS)" that scores law reviews and journals on a scale of 1-5 based on the following factors: (1) the significance of the law review or journal (2) the importance of the law review’s or journal’s subject matter to scholars in other fields and in the real world (3) the intellectual rigor of the law review or journal (4) whether the law review or journal serves or reflects the best traditions of scholarship, and (5) the professional respect of the editorial staff.
His recommendations for a citation and rating search through open platforms like Google Scholar also provide a technology-based alternative to raw data which depends somewhat less on editorial bias. Specifically, professors can run Google Scholar searches for all citations to the professors’ most-cited works in the previous five years. They would then search Google Scholar for all articles published in the law review or journals with the highest RoSQS score in the previous five years. By counting citations to articles, professors could determine the number of articles published in the law review or journal and the number of citations to those articles. This would eliminate the possibility that professors would be influenced by law review editor preferences.