IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/osf/lawarx/952gh.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Improving the credibility of empirical legal research: practical suggestions for researchers, journals, and law schools

Author

Listed:
  • Chin, Jason

    (University of Sydney)

  • DeHaven, Alexander Carl

    (Center for Open Science)

  • Heycke, Tobias

    (GESIS - Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences)

  • Holcombe, Alex O.
  • Mellor, David Thomas

    (Center for Open Science)

  • Pickett, Justin
  • Steltenpohl, Crystal Nicole

    (University of Southern Indiana)

  • Vazire, Simine
  • Zeiler, Kathryn

    (Boston University)

Abstract

Fields closely related to empirical legal research are enhancing their methods to improve the credibility of their findings. This includes making data, analysis code, and other materials openly available, and preregistering studies. Empirical legal research appears to be lagging behind other fields. This may be due, in part, to a lack of meta-research and guidance on empirical legal studies. The authors seek to fill that gap by evaluating some indicators of credibility in empirical legal research, including a review of guidelines at legal journals. They then provide both general recommendations for researchers, and more specific recommendations aimed at three commonly used empirical legal methods: case law analysis, surveys, and qualitative studies. They end with suggestions for policies and incentive systems that may be implemented by journals and law schools.

Suggested Citation

  • Chin, Jason & DeHaven, Alexander Carl & Heycke, Tobias & Holcombe, Alex O. & Mellor, David Thomas & Pickett, Justin & Steltenpohl, Crystal Nicole & Vazire, Simine & Zeiler, Kathryn, 2020. "Improving the credibility of empirical legal research: practical suggestions for researchers, journals, and law schools," LawArXiv 952gh, Center for Open Science.
    • Handle: RePEc:osf:lawarx:952gh
    DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/952gh
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://osf.io/download/5f6c9bc09e9a3d01d76e4f3b/
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.31219/osf.io/952gh?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
    ---><---

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:osf:lawarx:952gh. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: OSF (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://osf.io/preprints/lawarxiv/discover .

    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.