Journal of Empirical Legal Studies

9.4k citations
600 papers · · active since 2003

Impact in

  • Law top 1%
    • Judicial and Constitutional Studies
    • Jury Decision Making Processes
    • Legal processes and jurisprudence
  • Pharmacy top 10%
    • Medical Malpractice and Liability Issues

Papers in

  • Law 247
    • Judicial and Constitutional Studies 98
    • Jury Decision Making Processes 42
    • Legal processes and jurisprudence 33
    • Legal Education and Practice Innovations 32
    • Medical Malpractice and Liability Issues 39

Journal of Empirical Legal Studies

549 papers receiving 8.3k citations

Peers

Journal of Empirical Legal Studies
Comparison fields: 5 of 131
  • Law 3k
  • Pharmacy 386
  • Accounting 1.1k
  • General Decision Sciences 213
  • Economics and Econometrics 1.9k
Replace Law & Policy with:
Law & Policy United States
American Law and Economics Review United States
Annual Review of Law and Social Science United States
Texas law review United States
Philosophy &amp Public Affairs United States
Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal United States
Journal of Political Philosophy United States
Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics JITE Germany
Rationality and Society United States
Northwestern University law review United States
Journal of Empirical Legal Studies relative to Law & Policy United States Law & Policy's profile →
Citations per field
00.5×2×4×6×7.6×
Law & Policy · 1×
Citations per year

Countries where authors publish in Journal of Empirical Legal Studies

Since Specialization
Citations

This map shows the geographic impact of research published in Journal of Empirical Legal Studies. It shows the number of citations coming from papers published by authors working in each country. You can also color the map by specialization and compare the number of citations received by papers published in Journal of Empirical Legal Studies with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Journal of Empirical Legal Studies more than expected).

Fields of papers published in Journal of Empirical Legal Studies

Since Specialization
Physical SciencesHealth SciencesLife SciencesSocial Sciences

This network shows the impact of papers published in Journal of Empirical Legal Studies. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the papers published in Journal of Empirical Legal Studies.

About Journal of Empirical Legal Studies

The 600 papers published in Journal of Empirical Legal Studies in the last decades have received a total of 9.4k indexed citations . Papers published in Journal of Empirical Legal Studies usually cover Law (247 papers), Pharmacy (39 papers), Economics and Econometrics (214 papers), General Decision Sciences (20 papers) and Accounting (66 papers) specifically the topics of Law, Economics, and Judicial Systems (178 papers), Judicial and Constitutional Studies (98 papers), Criminal Justice and Corrections Analysis (44 papers), Jury Decision Making Processes (42 papers), Medical Malpractice and Liability Issues (39 papers), Corporate Finance and Governance (38 papers), Legal processes and jurisprudence (33 papers) and Legal Education and Practice Innovations (32 papers). The most active scholars publishing in Journal of Empirical Legal Studies are Jeffrey A. Fagan, Theodore A. Eisenberg, Marc S. Galanter, Tom R. Tyler, Bernard S. Black, Amanda Geller, James L. Gibson, Richard A. Berk, Adam C. Pritchard and Alex R. Piquero.

Rankless uses publication and citation data sourced from OpenAlex, an open and comprehensive bibliographic database. While OpenAlex provides broad and valuable coverage of the global research landscape, it—like all bibliographic datasets—has inherent limitations. These include incomplete records, variations in author disambiguation, differences in journal indexing, and delays in data updates. As a result, some metrics and network relationships displayed in Rankless may not fully capture the entirety of a scholar's output or impact.

Explore journals with similar magnitude of impact