While (appropriately enough) empirical research on scholarship published in US-based law journals generally comports with the conventional wisdom regarding ELS' rise over time, results from a similar study of European-based law journals, however, point in a different direction. In Empirical Legal Research in Europe: Prevalence, Obstacles and Interventions, by van Dijck et al. (Maastricht, NL), the authors note while:
"There seems to be a strong belief that Empirical Legal Research (ELR) has been on the rise. A recently published article explored its prevalence in Europe. The authors carried out an empirical analysis of 78 European-based law journals, encompassing issues from 2008 to 2017. The findings demonstrate that a supposed increase of ELR is questionable (at best). Moreover, additional findings highlight prestigious journals being more likely to publish empirical articles than less-prestigious journals and older journals being more likely to publish empirical work than more recent journals, but not at an increasing rate. The study obviously comes with some limitations, since the time period that was examined is limited, because an analysis of the submitted articles may paint a different picture, or because ELR scholars may tend to publish in US-based journals rather than European-based journals. Nonetheless, the findings do raise the question why ELR has not become more popular in Europe."
The paper's selection-bias point is especially interesting (as is the nomenclature move from "ELS" to "ELR") and comports with JELS' editors sense of growing interest (evidenced by increased submissions) from non-US-based scholars.
Comments