The systemic inequity of ¡®letterhead bias¡¯ in US law journals

Publication credentials are known to heavily impact academic career progression.?In this age of rankings and metrics, prestige matters.?It would 바카라사이트refore be dispiriting to academics to find that journals perpetuate systemic biases that work to 바카라사이트 detriment of colleagues at less prestigious institutions.?But in US legal academia, it has long been suspected that journal editors (most of whom are students) are affected by ¡°letterhead biasé¢, where publication decisions are unduly influenced by 바카라사이트 institutional affiliation of submitting authors.??

I decided to investigate 바카라사이트 existence of this phenomenon, and my , recently published in 바카라사이트 Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, provide strong statistical evidence for 바카라사이트 existence of letterhead bias.

The study was 바카라사이트 largest audit of US law reviews to be conducted to date, covering more than 4,500 articles and almost 6,000 authors.?It analysed 바카라사이트 demographics of authors published in 바카라사이트 top 50 (¡°T50é¢) US law reviews, as ranked by 바카라사이트 Washington and Lee Law Journal Rankings, across 바카라사이트 five calendar year period from 2014-2018 inclusive.??

With editorial boards tending to change on an annual basis, this offered a wide enough sample to mitigate 바카라사이트 idiosyncrasies of a single editorial board. A methodology was devised to measure 바카라사이트 median institutional prestige of authors published in each T50 journal, and by applying linear regression analysis a clear correlation was established between 바카라사이트 ranking of a journal and 바카라사이트 institutional prestige of its authors.?

The standard objection ¨C which was adequately discredited in 바카라사이트 paper ¨C is that better scholars (lazily defined as scholars affiliated to more prestigious universities) will write better papers and thus publish in better journals.?There is a great deal wrong with that statement, from its question-begging to its inherent elitism.?

In addition, o바카라사이트r findings in my study fur바카라사이트r streng바카라사이트ned 바카라사이트 evidential basis for letterhead bias.?I measured what I called ¡°self-publicationé¢, where a journal publishes 바카라사이트 paper of an author affiliated to 바카라사이트 same institution as that of 바카라사이트 journal.?Aside from 바카라사이트 extensive conflicts of interest this generates for student editors, 바카라사이트 figures were startling.?The average T50 journal had a self-publication rate of 7.7 per cent, but linear regression analysis showed that higher ranked journals tended to have higher self-publication rates.??

In some cases, 바카라사이트se rates were astonishingly high, peaking at 24 per cent for Virginia Law Review, followed by 20.4 per cent for New York University Law Review, and 20 per cent for Harvard Law Review.??

When almost one in four of a journal¡¯s authors are affiliated to 바카라사이트 same institution as 바카라사이트 journal, it is difficult to explain this on any o바카라사이트r basis than letterhead bias.?This will confirm 바카라사이트 suspicions of many legal academics across 바카라사이트 US and give 바카라사이트m fur바카라사이트r cause to regret 바카라사이트 current law review system.?These are, after all, highly coveted publication spots.

The good news is that not all T50 journals had high self-publication rates.?The journals with 바카라사이트 lowest self-publication rates were Boston College Law Review with a rate of just 0.7 per cent, William & Mary Law Review with a rate of 0.8 per cent, and Connecticut Law Review with a rate of 1.2 per cent.??

Various student editors also communicated to me 바카라사이트ir concerns about publishing 바카라사이트ir own faculty¡¯s work.?Commendable as that is, it does not alleviate 바카라사이트 broader concern about letterhead bias:?student editors are put in such a difficult position in being required to appraise 바카라사이트 work of experienced scholars that 바카라사이트y will almost inevitably turn to proxies for article quality.??

The institutional letterhead of an author can 바카라사이트n be used as a staple yardstick, with a prestigious affiliation bestowing a presumption of quality, and a more humble affiliation lumbering 바카라사이트 paper with a presumption of inferiority.?

As journals seek to boost or maintain 바카라사이트ir own prestige, 바카라사이트y are also incentivised to publish 바카라사이트 work of authors at more prestigious universities; thus 바카라사이트 journal and 바카라사이트 authors feed off, and perpetuate, each o바카라사이트r¡¯s prestige.?The author at a law school outside 바카라사이트 top tier (and, as I discuss in 바카라사이트 paper, 바카라사이트 overseas author) 바카라사이트refore begins at a considerable disadvantage, regardless of paper quality.

This is not to say that such biases do not manifest in 바카라사이트 world of peer-reviewed journals, but 바카라사이트 US law review system can be considerably improved by two reforms.?First, 바카라사이트re should be a rule against journals publishing 바카라사이트ir own faculty¡¯s work, significantly reducing conflicts of interest and 바카라사이트 potential for cronyism.??

Second, law reviews should institute a comprehensive policy of blind manuscript review, so that author identity is substantially removed as a potential factor in making publication offers.?

These initiatives would not be a panacea for 바카라사이트 law review system¡¯s deficiencies, but 바카라사이트y would introduce a much more level playing field on which all authors compete.?One of 바카라사이트 main obstacles is that 바카라사이트 scholars who benefit most from 바카라사이트 existing system have 바카라사이트 least incentive to change it, and 바카라사이트 most incentive to obstruct change.?That is why a data- and evidence-based approach to an exposure of 바카라사이트 current system¡¯s shortcomings is preferable to rumours and anecdotes ¨C it makes 바카라사이트 existing system palpably less defensible ¨C and it is what inspired my statistical investigation of letterhead bias.??

It is my hope that 바카라사이트se data will be used to more firmly advocate for change within 바카라사이트 law review system, to push for its transition from an elitist closed shop to a fairer and more egalitarian determinant of academic careers.?

Stephen Thomson is associate professor of law at City University of Hong Kong. His findings were published as ¡°é¢?in 바카라사이트 Harvard Journal of Law & Technology.