IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/empleg/v17y2020i2p416-434.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Developing High‐Quality Data Infrastructure for Legal Analytics: Introducing the Israeli Supreme Court Database

Author

Listed:
  • Keren Weinshall
  • Lee Epstein

Abstract

Driving discovery in the study of law and legal institutions often requires infrastructure in the form of databases and other tools. The challenge is how to build the infrastructure. For obvious reasons, transplanting coding rules and variables from one dataset to the next is perilous; specialized knowledge of local conditions is necessary before one piece of datum is collected. Also required is adherence to a universal set of principles that distinguish high‐quality infrastructure; namely, that the tool is capable of addressing real‐world problems, accessible, reproducible and reliable, sustainable and updatable, and foundational. These principles guided construction of the Israeli Supreme Court Database, new and original infrastructure encoding information from all panel cases opened between 2010 and 2018 in the Israeli Supreme Court.

Suggested Citation

  • Keren Weinshall & Lee Epstein, 2020. "Developing High‐Quality Data Infrastructure for Legal Analytics: Introducing the Israeli Supreme Court Database," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(2), pages 416-434, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:empleg:v:17:y:2020:i:2:p:416-434
    DOI: 10.1111/jels.12250
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/jels.12250
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/jels.12250?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Grimmer, Justin & Stewart, Brandon M., 2013. "Text as Data: The Promise and Pitfalls of Automatic Content Analysis Methods for Political Texts," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 21(3), pages 267-297, July.
    2. Carlson, David & Montgomery, Jacob M., 2017. "A Pairwise Comparison Framework for Fast, Flexible, and Reliable Human Coding of Political Texts," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 111(4), pages 835-843, November.
    3. Benoit, Kenneth & Conway, Drew & Lauderdale, Benjamin E. & Laver, Michael & Mikhaylov, Slava, 2016. "Crowd-sourced Text Analysis: Reproducible and Agile Production of Political Data," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 110(2), pages 278-295, May.
    4. Hanjo Hamann, 2019. "The German Federal Courts Dataset 1950–2019: From Paper Archives to Linked Open Data," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(3), pages 671-688, September.
    5. Christine L. Borgman, 2012. "The conundrum of sharing research data," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 63(6), pages 1059-1078, June.
    6. Christine L. Borgman, 2012. "The conundrum of sharing research data," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 63(6), pages 1059-1078, June.
    7. Daniel Klerman & Yoon-Ho Alex Lee, 2014. "Inferences from Litigated Cases," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 43(2), pages 209-248.
    8. Kong-Pin Chen & Kuo-Chang Huang & Chang-Ching Lin, 2015. "Party Capability versus Court Preference: Why Do the "Haves" Come Out Ahead?—An Empirical Lesson from the Taiwan Supreme Court," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 31(1), pages 93-126.
    9. Heather A Piwowar & Roger S Day & Douglas B Fridsma, 2007. "Sharing Detailed Research Data Is Associated with Increased Citation Rate," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 2(3), pages 1-5, March.
    10. Keren Weinshall‐Margel, 2011. "Attitudinal and Neo‐Institutional Models of Supreme Court Decision Making: An Empirical and Comparative Perspective from Israel," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(3), pages 556-586, September.
    11. David Gliksberg, 2014. "Does the Law Matter? Win Rates and Law Reforms," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(2), pages 378-407, June.
    12. Lisa M Federer & Christopher W Belter & Douglas J Joubert & Alicia Livinski & Ya-Ling Lu & Lissa N Snyders & Holly Thompson, 2018. "Data sharing in PLOS ONE: An analysis of Data Availability Statements," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(5), pages 1-12, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Benedikt Fecher & Sascha Friesike & Marcel Hebing, 2014. "What Drives Academic Data Sharing?," SOEPpapers on Multidisciplinary Panel Data Research 655, DIW Berlin, The German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP).
    2. Monika Stachowiak-Kudła & Janusz Kudła, 2022. "Path dependence in administrative adjudication: the role played by legal tradition," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 33(3), pages 301-325, September.
    3. Liwei Zhang & Liang Ma, 2021. "Does open data boost journal impact: evidence from Chinese economics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(4), pages 3393-3419, April.
    4. Shibayama, Sotaro & Lawson, Cornelia, 2021. "The use of rewards in the sharing of research resources," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(7).
    5. Liwei Zhang & Liang Ma, 2023. "Is open science a double-edged sword?: data sharing and the changing citation pattern of Chinese economics articles," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(5), pages 2803-2818, May.
    6. Stefan Reichmann & Thomas Klebel & Ilire Hasani‐Mavriqi & Tony Ross‐Hellauer, 2021. "Between administration and research: Understanding data management practices in an institutional context," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 72(11), pages 1415-1431, November.
    7. Benedikt Fecher & Sascha Friesike & Marcel Hebing, 2015. "What Drives Academic Data Sharing?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(2), pages 1-25, February.
    8. Isabella Peters & Peter Kraker & Elisabeth Lex & Christian Gumpenberger & Juan Gorraiz, 2016. "Research data explored: an extended analysis of citations and altmetrics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 107(2), pages 723-744, May.
    9. Benedikt Fecher & Sascha Friesike & Marcel Hebing, 2014. "What Drives Academic Data Sharing?," RatSWD Working Papers 236, German Data Forum (RatSWD).
    10. Sixto-Costoya Andrea & Robinson-Garcia Nicolas & Leeuwen Thed & Costas Rodrigo, 2021. "Exploring the relevance of ORCID as a source of study of data sharing activities at the individual-level: a methodological discussion," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(8), pages 7149-7165, August.
    11. Robinson-Garcia, Nicolas & Mongeon, Philippe & Jeng, Wei & Costas, Rodrigo, 2017. "DataCite as a novel bibliometric source: Coverage, strengths and limitations," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 11(3), pages 841-854.
    12. Hou, Jianhua & Wang, Yuanyuan & Zhang, Yang & Wang, Dongyi, 2022. "How do scholars and non-scholars participate in dataset dissemination on Twitter," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(1).
    13. Vikas Jaiman & Leonard Pernice & Visara Urovi, 2022. "User incentives for blockchain-based data sharing platforms," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(4), pages 1-22, April.
    14. Mike Thelwall, 2020. "Data in Brief: Can a mega-journal for data be useful?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(1), pages 697-709, July.
    15. Carol Tenopir & Elizabeth D Dalton & Suzie Allard & Mike Frame & Ivanka Pjesivac & Ben Birch & Danielle Pollock & Kristina Dorsett, 2015. "Changes in Data Sharing and Data Reuse Practices and Perceptions among Scientists Worldwide," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(8), pages 1-24, August.
    16. Martin Haselmayer & Marcelo Jenny, 2017. "Sentiment analysis of political communication: combining a dictionary approach with crowdcoding," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 51(6), pages 2623-2646, November.
    17. Federica Cugnata & Chiara Brombin & Chiara Maria Poli & Roberto Buccione & Clelia Serio, 2024. "Modelling perception and resilience factors to data sharing in clinical and basic research: an observational study," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(6), pages 3169-3192, June.
    18. Andrea K. Thomer, 2022. "Integrative data reuse at scientifically significant sites: Case studies at Yellowstone National Park and the La Brea Tar Pits," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 73(8), pages 1155-1170, August.
    19. Koenraad De Smedt & Dimitris Koureas & Peter Wittenburg, 2020. "FAIR Digital Objects for Science: From Data Pieces to Actionable Knowledge Units," Publications, MDPI, vol. 8(2), pages 1-17, April.
    20. Plantin, Jean-Christophe, 2021. "The data archive as factory: alienation and resistance of data processors," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 109692, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:empleg:v:17:y:2020:i:2:p:416-434. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1740-1461 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.