作为集体事业的法律研究:对实证法律学术研究中数据可用性的审查

Abigail A Matthews, Jason Rantanen
{"title":"作为集体事业的法律研究:对实证法律学术研究中数据可用性的审查","authors":"Abigail A Matthews, Jason Rantanen","doi":"10.1093/jleo/ewae001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"While most social sciences confronted data sharing, transparency, and reproducibility sometime in the last two decades, the legal academy has largely been absent from these discussions. In this study, we examine the degree to which the information underlying empirical studies is available. Using an original dataset of every empirical study published in top law journals from 2010 to 2022, we find that 15% have a dataset that is readily available. We compare these low rates with a dataset of every empirical article published in the top economics, political science, and interdisciplinary journals from 2018 to 2022. The vast majority of these articles (99%) make their data available. Additional analysis demonstrates that disciplinary norms enforced by journals drive when authors make their data available. Given the discrepancy between law and other social sciences, we advocate for a disciplinary and cultural shift in law that embraces data accessibility and identify concrete steps to improve data availability. (JEL K00, K1, K10)","PeriodicalId":501404,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Legal research as a collective enterprise: an examination of data availability in empirical legal scholarship\",\"authors\":\"Abigail A Matthews, Jason Rantanen\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/jleo/ewae001\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"While most social sciences confronted data sharing, transparency, and reproducibility sometime in the last two decades, the legal academy has largely been absent from these discussions. In this study, we examine the degree to which the information underlying empirical studies is available. Using an original dataset of every empirical study published in top law journals from 2010 to 2022, we find that 15% have a dataset that is readily available. We compare these low rates with a dataset of every empirical article published in the top economics, political science, and interdisciplinary journals from 2018 to 2022. The vast majority of these articles (99%) make their data available. Additional analysis demonstrates that disciplinary norms enforced by journals drive when authors make their data available. Given the discrepancy between law and other social sciences, we advocate for a disciplinary and cultural shift in law that embraces data accessibility and identify concrete steps to improve data availability. (JEL K00, K1, K10)\",\"PeriodicalId\":501404,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/jleo/ewae001\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jleo/ewae001","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在过去二十年中,大多数社会科学都面临着数据共享、透明度和可重复性等问题,而法学界却基本上没有参与这些讨论。在本研究中,我们考察了实证研究的基础信息的可用程度。通过使用 2010 年至 2022 年间发表在顶级法学期刊上的所有实证研究的原始数据集,我们发现只有 15% 的数据集是现成可用的。我们将这些低比率与 2018 年至 2022 年在顶级经济学、政治学和跨学科期刊上发表的每篇实证文章的数据集进行比较。这些文章中的绝大多数(99%)都提供了数据。其他分析表明,期刊执行的学科规范推动了作者何时提供数据。鉴于法学与其他社会科学之间的差异,我们倡导法学界进行学科和文化转变,接受数据的可获取性,并确定了提高数据可获取性的具体步骤。(JEL K00, K1, K10)
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Legal research as a collective enterprise: an examination of data availability in empirical legal scholarship
While most social sciences confronted data sharing, transparency, and reproducibility sometime in the last two decades, the legal academy has largely been absent from these discussions. In this study, we examine the degree to which the information underlying empirical studies is available. Using an original dataset of every empirical study published in top law journals from 2010 to 2022, we find that 15% have a dataset that is readily available. We compare these low rates with a dataset of every empirical article published in the top economics, political science, and interdisciplinary journals from 2018 to 2022. The vast majority of these articles (99%) make their data available. Additional analysis demonstrates that disciplinary norms enforced by journals drive when authors make their data available. Given the discrepancy between law and other social sciences, we advocate for a disciplinary and cultural shift in law that embraces data accessibility and identify concrete steps to improve data availability. (JEL K00, K1, K10)
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Partisan bias in securities enforcement Markets and morality: how markets shape our (dis)regard for others Politics and gender in the executive suite Sweeping the dirt under the rug: measuring spillovers of an anti-corruption measure Strangers’ property
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1