The Top Law Reviews (Eigenfactor)

You may also like...

4 Responses

  1. GW Law Review isn't in the top 50 says:

    There is already a website that does this that’s put out by W&L. This list is either poorly compiled or completely ignorant of the citation history used by W&L.

  2. Thank you for the comments. A note on the criteria for including law reviews and journals in the Eigenfactor ranksing: Our rankings our based on the raw data from the Thomson-Reuters Journal Citation Reports (JCR). Therefore we rank only those journals listed in the JCR.

    Scores for the year 2009 scores will be released on the website in December 2010.

    Jevin West,
    Eigenfactor Project

  3. Lawrence Cunningham says:

    Jevin: Many thanks. Looking forward to your continued work on this.

  4. Lawrence Cunningham says:

    Re Response 1: Perhaps the author is joking, if suggesting that, just because one ranking method exists, no others can exist or be better. Good comments at PrawfsBlawg (to which my post above links) attest to both the appeal and limits of the W&L method, compared to numerous others.

    W&L do a wonderful and useful service, but naturally recognize inherent limits in their methodology. One appealing innovation of eigenfactor is the attempt to refine the pure count of citations (cumulative or average) on which W&L is primiarly based to reflect some of the differences in citation quality.

    This isn’t to say one or the other is better. They may be better or worse in different ways. Indeed, one nice thing about the W&L service is how it can be tailored in a large number of different ways, including at different times in history. (Which prompts adding that, whoever titled Response 1 is also obviously wrong about GW Law Review, whether on the W&L scales, at least in the past two years, or any other reliable sense of which I’m aware.)