Legal scholarship long has been criticized (and here). LawProfBlawg (Pigs Can Fly!: The Sins Of Legal Scholars) lays out the following allegations in the latest critique:
- Misleading Title Clickbait.
- Lying About Facts.
- Misstating Theory.
- Not Citing Literature.
- Not Reading Literature.
- Misciting Literature.
- Making Grandiose Claims.
- Heroic Assumptions That Are Unrealistic.
- Asskiss Cites.
- Sacrificing Accuracy For Speed.
Are these failings of all, most, or some legal scholarship? This got me thinking about how we might best measure the quality and usefulness of legal scholarship. If number 6 above is a widespread practice, citation counts may not always indicate high quality scholarship.
