Citations counts are becoming increasingly important in academics, including legal academics. Beginning with the next ranking issue, U.S. News will report (though not yet include in its overall metric) citation counts for law school faculties as a measure of scholarly impact, using Hein Online as its source. There are many citations, however, that will not show up in Hein Online,
The Third Rainbow Girl, by Emma Copley Eisenberg, is the true story of a double murder in Pocahontas County, West Virginia, committed in 1980. According to the New York Times, it is an “evocative and elegantly paced examination of the murders,” and it is a top-seller on Amazon.com.
The book also quotes me, twice, citing Modern Trial Advocacy on the need for a persuasive theory and theme in a criminal prosecution:
“Your case must have both a theory and a theme,” advises Steven Lubet, author of Modern Trial Advocacy: Analysis and Practice. A winning theory “has logical internal force,” and it should be simple and easy to believe. “Even ‘true’ theories may be difficult to believe because they contradict everyday experiences,” writes Lubet. “You must strive to eliminate all implausible elements from your theory.”
“Lawyers must therefore pay careful attention to the fact finder’s frame of reference, which in turn will be determined, at least in part, by his or her education, training, background, experiences, and biases,” Lubet, the trial expert, further advises.
I don’t know of any data base that picks up such citations, but I thought it was pretty cool (a friend alerted me, though I had already planned to read the book). These citations, which are in the text rather than footnotes, will probably be seen by more readers -- perhaps by orders of magnitude -- than most law review articles, but that won't count for bupkes in U.S. News.
This, of course, also raises questions about the meaning of "scholarly impact." If defined solely by citation counts, the term evidently means something like "impact among scholars," rather than "impact of scholarship." Without making any claims about the importance of inclusion in The Third Rainbow Girl, it certainly seems that influence beyond academic journals ought to be worth something.
It's even more narrow.
Hein completely ignores books in every way: it does not pick up any citations IN books (of journal articles or otherwise), or any citations OF books (by journal articles or otherwise).
I believe Hein citation counts also do not pick up any citations of or by non-law academic journals, nor even some legal publications (i.e., if they are not in Hein's database).
Posted by: Al Arbabi | February 05, 2020 at 12:34 PM
It has been my experience over the past forty years in law teaching that legal information companies who count citations significantly disadvantage interdisciplinary scholars who tend to follow the publication norms of their non-legal field of expertise. There is also a comparable problem for those who publish in foreign journals. I have heard the same complaint from other legal historians, particularly those (like me) who have joint appointments. The chair of the History Department wants books and refereed articles. The Dean of the law school wants articles in law reviews, most of which are not refereed. It is simply an unfortunate—and unfair— fact of life at many law schools.
Posted by: Mike Hoeflich | February 06, 2020 at 10:30 AM
The clear bias against peer review is palpable in this USNWR Hein cabal. It will further exacerbate the gap in academia between law schools and the wider university community. Please spend a few moment reading the file now available via Brian Leiter's site on USC tenure controversy to see the damage that is done by the failure of law schools to adopt a peer review structure.
Posted by: Steve Diamond | February 06, 2020 at 05:29 PM