It has been well-reported that Brian Leiter, Paul Caron and Joe Hodnicki have teamed up to produce the latest non-USNews law school ranking data. One part of their project measures faculty quality using the proxy of the citations of the more productive members of each faculty. The list is here.
I know our legal readers are way (way) beyond rankings, so they might not actually visit the site. That would be a shame, because the trio wrote a fascinating introductory section discussing six ways in which citation studies may be distorted. The basic theme seems to be that although we would normally assume that work that is cited more often is “better” than work that isn’t, some folks’ work will get cited more often than quality alone would dictate. Those distorted writers are (to paraphrase):
2. Treatise writers.
3. Flash-in-the pans faddists.
4. The very wrong.
5. “[O]nce-productive dinosaurs.”
6. Public law scholars, constitutionalists and crits.