
Fields closely related to empirical legal research (ELR) are enhancing their methods to improve the credibility of their findings. This includes making data, analysis codes and other materials openly available on digital repositories and preregistering studies. There are numerous benefits to these practices, such as research being easier to find and access through digital research methods. However, ELR appears to be lagging cognate fields. This may be partly due to a lack of field-specific meta-research and guidance. We sought to fill that gap by first evaluating credibility indicators in ELR, including a review of guidelines for legal journals. This review finds considerable room for improvement in how law journals regulate ELR. The remainder of the article provides practical guidance for the field. We start with general recommendations for empirical legal researchers and then turn to recommendations aimed at three commonly used empirical legal methods: content analyses of judicial decisions, surveys and qualitative studies. We end with suggestions for journals and law schools.
LawArXiv|Social and Behavioral Sciences, info:eu-repo/classification/ddc/340, 330, LawArXiv|Law|Legal Education, bepress|Social and Behavioral Sciences|Economics, bepress|Law|Science and Technology Law, LawArXiv|Law|Other Law, bepress|Law|Legal Writing and Research, meta-research, LawArXiv|Law|Science and Technology Law, LawArXiv|Social and Behavioral Sciences|Psychology, LawArXiv|Social and Behavioral Sciences|Economics, open science, LawArXiv|Social and Behavioral Sciences|Sociology, bepress|Law|Other Law, reproducibility, open access, bepress|Social and Behavioral Sciences|Psychology, LawArXiv|Law|Legal Writing and Research, bepress|Law|Legal Education, empirical legal research, K1-7720, LawArXiv|Law, bepress|Law, LawArXiv|Social and Behavioral Sciences|Sociology|Criminology, bepress|Social and Behavioral Sciences|Sociology, Law in general. Comparative and uniform law. Jurisprudence, bepress|Social and Behavioral Sciences|Sociology|Criminology, bepress|Social and Behavioral Sciences
LawArXiv|Social and Behavioral Sciences, info:eu-repo/classification/ddc/340, 330, LawArXiv|Law|Legal Education, bepress|Social and Behavioral Sciences|Economics, bepress|Law|Science and Technology Law, LawArXiv|Law|Other Law, bepress|Law|Legal Writing and Research, meta-research, LawArXiv|Law|Science and Technology Law, LawArXiv|Social and Behavioral Sciences|Psychology, LawArXiv|Social and Behavioral Sciences|Economics, open science, LawArXiv|Social and Behavioral Sciences|Sociology, bepress|Law|Other Law, reproducibility, open access, bepress|Social and Behavioral Sciences|Psychology, LawArXiv|Law|Legal Writing and Research, bepress|Law|Legal Education, empirical legal research, K1-7720, LawArXiv|Law, bepress|Law, LawArXiv|Social and Behavioral Sciences|Sociology|Criminology, bepress|Social and Behavioral Sciences|Sociology, Law in general. Comparative and uniform law. Jurisprudence, bepress|Social and Behavioral Sciences|Sociology|Criminology, bepress|Social and Behavioral Sciences
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 3 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Average | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Average | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |
