In China law journals are ranked together with journals from the (other) social sciences. As a result the evaluation of journals is based on bibliometric indicators. This has major disadvantages because quantitative indicators, such as citation scores, are merely a proxy for research quality and the citation patterns in law are quite different from other disciplines. Moreover, the current journal rankings do not enhance a fair status competition between law journals because only a very small part of the total amount of Chinese law journals are included in the rankings, while specialized law journals with relatively few readers have to compete with general interest law reviews aiming for a much broader audience. As far as Chinese elite law journals, also apply more qualitative evaluation methods, such as peer review, this does not solve the problem as long as there is no consensus on the criteria that reviewers have to apply and there are no guidelines for the selection of (independent) reviewers. More importantly, there are signs that the peer review process of journals is corrupted by “guanxi” – the informal social relationships that rule the publishing culture in legal academia. This might also explain the high level of in-house publications that can be found in most elite law journals run by staff members from the elite law schools. The paper argues that serious reforms are unavoidable if China wants to be ready for the challenges that globalisation is posing for academic legal publishing.
{"title":"Evaluating Chinese Legal Scholarship in Journals: Are Journal Rankings and Elite Law Journals Representing the Best Quality?","authors":"Jian Zhang","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2706585","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2706585","url":null,"abstract":"In China law journals are ranked together with journals from the (other) social sciences. As a result the evaluation of journals is based on bibliometric indicators. This has major disadvantages because quantitative indicators, such as citation scores, are merely a proxy for research quality and the citation patterns in law are quite different from other disciplines. Moreover, the current journal rankings do not enhance a fair status competition between law journals because only a very small part of the total amount of Chinese law journals are included in the rankings, while specialized law journals with relatively few readers have to compete with general interest law reviews aiming for a much broader audience. As far as Chinese elite law journals, also apply more qualitative evaluation methods, such as peer review, this does not solve the problem as long as there is no consensus on the criteria that reviewers have to apply and there are no guidelines for the selection of (independent) reviewers. More importantly, there are signs that the peer review process of journals is corrupted by “guanxi” – the informal social relationships that rule the publishing culture in legal academia. This might also explain the high level of in-house publications that can be found in most elite law journals run by staff members from the elite law schools. The paper argues that serious reforms are unavoidable if China wants to be ready for the challenges that globalisation is posing for academic legal publishing.","PeriodicalId":38415,"journal":{"name":"Tilburg Law Review-Journal of International and Comparative Law","volume":"23 1","pages":"59"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7,"publicationDate":"2018-09-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2139/SSRN.2706585","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47390788","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In ignoring the overall debate regarding the need to incorporate empirical research methods in legal scholarship, this article explores the utility of applying a particular method, namely, systematic content analysis (SCA), as a complementary tool in legal research. A research method commonly utilized by social scientists, SCA is a replicable technique that can be applied in the analysis of a variety of texts, ranging from interview transcripts to legal texts such as case law, legislation and contracts. To further support the incorporation of SCA in legal research, this article, in its second section, provides an overview of SCA, as well as its various stages. Subsequently, the third section assesses the suitability and necessity of SCA by considering its limitations and benefits. In addition, the fourth section reflects on the issues, ranging from emotional to practical, that might be faced by legal scholars when attempting to conduct SCA. This article concludes by emphasizing the need to familiarize not only legal scholars, but also law students to the world of SCA.
{"title":"The Value of Systematic Content Analysis in Legal Research","authors":"Maryam Salehijam","doi":"10.5334/TILR.5","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5334/TILR.5","url":null,"abstract":"In ignoring the overall debate regarding the need to incorporate empirical research methods in legal scholarship, this article explores the utility of applying a particular method, namely, systematic content analysis (SCA), as a complementary tool in legal research. A research method commonly utilized by social scientists, SCA is a replicable technique that can be applied in the analysis of a variety of texts, ranging from interview transcripts to legal texts such as case law, legislation and contracts. To further support the incorporation of SCA in legal research, this article, in its second section, provides an overview of SCA, as well as its various stages. Subsequently, the third section assesses the suitability and necessity of SCA by considering its limitations and benefits. In addition, the fourth section reflects on the issues, ranging from emotional to practical, that might be faced by legal scholars when attempting to conduct SCA. This article concludes by emphasizing the need to familiarize not only legal scholars, but also law students to the world of SCA.","PeriodicalId":38415,"journal":{"name":"Tilburg Law Review-Journal of International and Comparative Law","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7,"publicationDate":"2018-09-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41376803","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Evaluating Chinese Legal Scholarship in Journals: Are Journal Rankings\u0000 and Elite Law Journals Representing the Best Quality?","authors":"Jian Zhang","doi":"10.5334/tilr.2","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5334/tilr.2","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":38415,"journal":{"name":"Tilburg Law Review-Journal of International and Comparative Law","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7,"publicationDate":"2018-09-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46808312","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
R. V. Gestel, Karin Silvia Byland, Andrea Lienhard
Law as a discipline is lagging behind other (social) sciences when it comes to research evaluation. There is no European ranking of law journals or legal publishers, no generally accepted system of peer review, no bibliometrical databases, and no consensus on quality indicators for academic legal publications. Scholars in Switzerland and the Netherlands organized surveys to ask their colleagues how they feel about different research evaluation methods and which quality indicators they prefer for the assessment of their research. The results reveal that, unlike university managers, legal scholars have a strong preference for qualitative evaluation methods (e.g. editorial scrutiny or independent peer review) over quantitative methods, such as citation counting and ranking. However, scholars in both countries seem to be worried about the costs and bureaucracy that come along with substantive quality assessment and about the selection and instruction of reviewers.
{"title":"Evaluation of Legal Research: Comparison of the Outcomes of a Swiss and\u0000 Dutch National Survey","authors":"R. V. Gestel, Karin Silvia Byland, Andrea Lienhard","doi":"10.5334/TILR.6","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5334/TILR.6","url":null,"abstract":"Law as a discipline is lagging behind other (social) sciences when it comes to research evaluation. There is no European ranking of law journals or legal publishers, no generally accepted system of peer review, no bibliometrical databases, and no consensus on quality indicators for academic legal publications. Scholars in Switzerland and the Netherlands organized surveys to ask their colleagues how they feel about different research evaluation methods and which quality indicators they prefer for the assessment of their research. The results reveal that, unlike university managers, legal scholars have a strong preference for qualitative evaluation methods (e.g. editorial scrutiny or independent peer review) over quantitative methods, such as citation counting and ranking. However, scholars in both countries seem to be worried about the costs and bureaucracy that come along with substantive quality assessment and about the selection and instruction of reviewers.","PeriodicalId":38415,"journal":{"name":"Tilburg Law Review-Journal of International and Comparative Law","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7,"publicationDate":"2018-09-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48053096","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Numerous peer-reviewed law journals, in particular Latin-American ones, stand out for their general use of blind methods to assess the substantive quality of academic articles. Nevertheless, this traditional peer review model is considered ill (i.e. poor-quality) across disciplines due to different technical and social issues. The cause seems to be the anonymity between the actors involved. Then, open peer review models have emerged as an antidote to combat the main symptoms that the blind model presents, namely, lack of transparency during the process and absence of reviewers’ accountability. However, thus far law journals have not adopted an open system yet. Moreover, neither theoretical nor empirical research has been conducted about its potential use. This article presents an in-depth analysis of the pros and cons of both the traditional and the open identities review models in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) disciplines – in which the latter has been broadly applied. This paper compares the experience of STEM disciplines in relation to both of the methods and use the insights from this comparison to examine the legal discipline. The author specifically argues that unmasking the identities of authors and evaluators may be a suitable way to counteract only some of the flaws that the blind model has entailed in the evaluation of academic legal publications, therefore a mixed method could be a fairer alternative for current blind-peer-reviewed law journals. The author concludes by providing recommendations for further research.
{"title":"Open Peer Review for Evaluating Academic Legal Publications: The “Antidote” to an “Ill” Blind Peer Review?","authors":"Yeimy Garrido-Gallego","doi":"10.5334/TILR.128","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5334/TILR.128","url":null,"abstract":"Numerous peer-reviewed law journals, in particular Latin-American ones, stand out for their general use of blind methods to assess the substantive quality of academic articles. Nevertheless, this traditional peer review model is considered ill (i.e. poor-quality) across disciplines due to different technical and social issues. The cause seems to be the anonymity between the actors involved. Then, open peer review models have emerged as an antidote to combat the main symptoms that the blind model presents, namely, lack of transparency during the process and absence of reviewers’ accountability. However, thus far law journals have not adopted an open system yet. Moreover, neither theoretical nor empirical research has been conducted about its potential use. This article presents an in-depth analysis of the pros and cons of both the traditional and the open identities review models in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) disciplines – in which the latter has been broadly applied. This paper compares the experience of STEM disciplines in relation to both of the methods and use the insights from this comparison to examine the legal discipline. The author specifically argues that unmasking the identities of authors and evaluators may be a suitable way to counteract only some of the flaws that the blind model has entailed in the evaluation of academic legal publications, therefore a mixed method could be a fairer alternative for current blind-peer-reviewed law journals. The author concludes by providing recommendations for further research.","PeriodicalId":38415,"journal":{"name":"Tilburg Law Review-Journal of International and Comparative Law","volume":"23 1","pages":"77-90"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7,"publicationDate":"2018-09-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43453499","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Quantifying Quality: A Case of Chasing the Dragon?","authors":"Oğuz Kırman","doi":"10.5334/TILR.127","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5334/TILR.127","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":38415,"journal":{"name":"Tilburg Law Review-Journal of International and Comparative Law","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7,"publicationDate":"2018-09-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43213515","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Rocío Del Pilar Peña-Huertas, Alejandro Abondano-Romero, Natalia Abril-Bonilla, María Camila Jiménez-Nicholls, Luisa Fernanda Uribe-Larrota
This article aims to propose a methodological design to explain and assess the land titling programs that have been implemented in Colombia since 1991. The methodology incorporates elements from social and legal sciences in order to analyze the results of land titling programmes in terms of the campesinos’ legal and social relationship with their land. This methodology focuses on evaluating whether land titling programs produced a change in the beneficiaries’ land rights. Consequently, the proposed analysis helps to understand how legal regulations affect and transform social relationships.
{"title":"Land Tenure Systems and Property Rights: Socio-Legal Studies in the\u0000 Colombian Case","authors":"Rocío Del Pilar Peña-Huertas, Alejandro Abondano-Romero, Natalia Abril-Bonilla, María Camila Jiménez-Nicholls, Luisa Fernanda Uribe-Larrota","doi":"10.5334/tilr.3","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5334/tilr.3","url":null,"abstract":"This article aims to propose a methodological design to explain and assess the land titling programs that have been implemented in Colombia since 1991. The methodology incorporates elements from social and legal sciences in order to analyze the results of land titling programmes in terms of the campesinos’ legal and social relationship with their land. This methodology focuses on evaluating whether land titling programs produced a change in the beneficiaries’ land rights. Consequently, the proposed analysis helps to understand how legal regulations affect and transform social relationships.","PeriodicalId":38415,"journal":{"name":"Tilburg Law Review-Journal of International and Comparative Law","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7,"publicationDate":"2018-09-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43634460","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This paper highlights the opportunities of utilizing software programs that allow qualitative analysis. By using software supported content analysis in legal research, we argue that research findings can become more scientifically robust (for instance, objective, reproducible and transparent). Nevertheless, the methods to do so are largely unexplored. The purpose of this article is to explore the value of ATLAS.ti software in conducting content analysis in law, supported by a proof of concept of legal research. Despite some limitations of qualitative analysis software, we argue that it is an accessible and useful tool for legal research.
{"title":"Content Analysis Software in Legal Research: A Proof of Concept Using\u0000 ATLAS.ti","authors":"H. Schebesta","doi":"10.5334/TILR.1","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5334/TILR.1","url":null,"abstract":"This paper highlights the opportunities of utilizing software programs that allow qualitative analysis. By using software supported content analysis in legal research, we argue that research findings can become more scientifically robust (for instance, objective, reproducible and transparent). Nevertheless, the methods to do so are largely unexplored. The purpose of this article is to explore the value of ATLAS.ti software in conducting content analysis in law, supported by a proof of concept of legal research. Despite some limitations of qualitative analysis software, we argue that it is an accessible and useful tool for legal research.","PeriodicalId":38415,"journal":{"name":"Tilburg Law Review-Journal of International and Comparative Law","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7,"publicationDate":"2018-09-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49420708","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2017-10-05DOI: 10.1163/22112596-02201009
F. Prieto-Ramos
As international organizations rely on translation to produce and enforce legal instruments in multiple languages, global law can be regarded as a network of translated texts. To shed light on the multilingual dimension of international and supranational law, this study presents an interdisciplinary mapping of legal genres in three representative settings: the UN, the WTO, the EU, and their respective adjudicative bodies. Genres are classified under three text typologies corresponding to three categories of legal procedures and text production: law-making, compliance monitoring and adjudication. The resulting taxonomies and their legal contextualization reveal important commonalities as regards the interconnection between legal text-types and functions, as well as differences that reflect the nature of each institutional legal system, including variations in the level of multilingualism. This mapping is considered a condition for further investigations into the scope and features of institutional legal translation, with the ultimate aim of improving its quality.
{"title":"Global Law as Translated Text: Mapping Institutional Legal Translation","authors":"F. Prieto-Ramos","doi":"10.1163/22112596-02201009","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/22112596-02201009","url":null,"abstract":"As international organizations rely on translation to produce and enforce legal instruments in multiple languages, global law can be regarded as a network of translated texts. To shed light on the multilingual dimension of international and supranational law, this study presents an interdisciplinary mapping of legal genres in three representative settings: the UN, the WTO, the EU, and their respective adjudicative bodies. Genres are classified under three text typologies corresponding to three categories of legal procedures and text production: law-making, compliance monitoring and adjudication. The resulting taxonomies and their legal contextualization reveal important commonalities as regards the interconnection between legal text-types and functions, as well as differences that reflect the nature of each institutional legal system, including variations in the level of multilingualism. This mapping is considered a condition for further investigations into the scope and features of institutional legal translation, with the ultimate aim of improving its quality.","PeriodicalId":38415,"journal":{"name":"Tilburg Law Review-Journal of International and Comparative Law","volume":"22 1","pages":"185-214"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7,"publicationDate":"2017-10-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/22112596-02201009","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45108300","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2017-10-05DOI: 10.1163/22112596-02201013
C. Rijken
Boaventura de Sousa Santos treated Tilburg University to a colorful and rich pallet of topics during his Montesquieu lecture that prompted self-reflection and critical review of the role of law in our western societies. He argued that the way the law functions today leads to the creation of an abyssal line that creates radical exclusions. Although critical of the role of law and the legal regime in western societies, he encourages us, lawyers of the 21st century, to reform and further develop the law in such a way that it is built on democratic pluralism, interculturality and dignity and as such contributes to a more inclusive society. In this short reflection on de Sousa Santos’ Lecture, I highlight some examples and situations that show how rules and procedures of Western societies can have detrimental effects on large groups of refugees and migrants.
{"title":"Threats, Monsters and the ‘Refugee Crisis’","authors":"C. Rijken","doi":"10.1163/22112596-02201013","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/22112596-02201013","url":null,"abstract":"Boaventura de Sousa Santos treated Tilburg University to a colorful and rich pallet of topics during his Montesquieu lecture that prompted self-reflection and critical review of the role of law in our western societies. He argued that the way the law functions today leads to the creation of an abyssal line that creates radical exclusions. Although critical of the role of law and the legal regime in western societies, he encourages us, lawyers of the 21st century, to reform and further develop the law in such a way that it is built on democratic pluralism, interculturality and dignity and as such contributes to a more inclusive society. In this short reflection on de Sousa Santos’ Lecture, I highlight some examples and situations that show how rules and procedures of Western societies can have detrimental effects on large groups of refugees and migrants.","PeriodicalId":38415,"journal":{"name":"Tilburg Law Review-Journal of International and Comparative Law","volume":"22 1","pages":"267-275"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7,"publicationDate":"2017-10-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/22112596-02201013","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41551914","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：