In Defense of Author Prominence: A Reply to Crespi and Korobkin
We set out to provide our ranking of specialized reviews for three reasons. First, given the dearth of published information about the specialized law review phenomenon, we sought to provide some basic information about the emergence and explosion of specialized reviews. Second, given limited time a...
Gespeichert in:
Hauptverfasser: | , |
---|---|
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext bestellen |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | We set out to provide our ranking of specialized reviews for three
reasons. First, given the dearth of published information about the
specialized law review phenomenon, we sought to provide some basic
information about the emergence and explosion of specialized reviews.
Second, given limited time and a large number of specialized
reviews, we hoped to help readers to make reading decisions and
writers to make placement decisions. We did not-and do not-mean
to suggest that readers and writers should base their decisions solely
on our, or on any other, ranking. But we do suspect that, all other
things being equal, readers would prefer to keep abreast of articles
written by prestigious authors (or authors affiliated with prestigious
institutions), and writers would prefer to place their articles in journals
publishing prestigious authors (or authors affiliated with prestigious
institutions). Third, and finally, we hoped to spark dialogue
and debate about the phenomenon and ranking of specialized journals. |
---|