Search the Lounge


« Do We Offer Too Many Death Penalty Courses? | Main | Sunstein Off To Harvard »

February 17, 2008


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


I am as much a supporter of Senator Obama as the next (self-identified) trend-setting Gen-X/Millennial (1982--will I ever belong to one generation instead of both or neither, depending on the source?), but I can't help but notice that, if the statistics to which you linked are accurate (and by no means will I go about finding out myself if they are), there is no year in which volume 104 is cited as frequently as either volume 103 or 105, there is only one year (2000) in which 104 received more cites than 106, and only 3 years 104 received more cites than 102.

Now, I don't want to be immodest with my conclusion-drawing, so I think there are some other bits of information we might need before we draw any conclusions (modest or not) about whether these numbers are at all meaningful. I'm confident these are either obvious or have been covered sufficiently elsewhere, so I'll leave that where it is.

As a final note, let me join with Al in saying that these citation counts are something other than germane to the Senator's presidential bid, and that I do believe--in a sense somewhat different than used in the post--that law reviews don't give up that easily. By this I mean that there is a strong institutional memory--in my experience anyhow--that would seem to mitigate or mute one EIC's influence at a journal (for the purposes of citation counts at least, as contrasted with editors' QOL).

By the way, does anyone know if these citation variations are statistically significant?

The comments to this entry are closed.


  • StatCounter
Blog powered by Typepad