TY  - GEN
AB  - 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.
AD  - University of Sydney School of Law
AD  - Center for Open Science
AD  - GESIS—Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences
AD  - University of Sydney School of Psychology
AD  - Center for Open Science
AD  - University at Albany
AD  - University of Southern Indiana
AD  - University of Melbourne School of Psychological Sciences
AD  - Boston University School of Law
AU  - Chin, Jason M
AU  - DeHaven, Alexander C
AU  - Heycke, Tobias
AU  - Holcombe, Alexander O
AU  - Mellor, David T
AU  - Pickett, Justin T
AU  - Steltenpohl, Crystal N.
AU  - Vazire, Simine
AU  - Zeiler, Kathryn
DA  - 2021-07-28
ID  - 1416651
JF  - Law, Technology and Humans
KW  - empirical legal research
KW  - open science
KW  - open access
KW  - reproducibility
KW  - meta-research
L1  - https://library.usi.edu/record/1416651/files/1875-Article%20Text-7791-1-10-20210727.pdf
L2  - https://library.usi.edu/record/1416651/files/1875-Article%20Text-7791-1-10-20210727.pdf
L4  - https://library.usi.edu/record/1416651/files/1875-Article%20Text-7791-1-10-20210727.pdf
LK  - https://library.usi.edu/record/1416651/files/1875-Article%20Text-7791-1-10-20210727.pdf
N2  - 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.
PB  - Queensland University of Technology
PY  - 2021-07-28
SN  - 2652-4074
T1  - Improving the Credibility of Empirical Legal Research: Practical Suggestions for Researchers, Journals and Law Schools
TI  - Improving the Credibility of Empirical Legal Research: Practical Suggestions for Researchers, Journals and Law Schools
UR  - https://library.usi.edu/record/1416651/files/1875-Article%20Text-7791-1-10-20210727.pdf
Y1  - 2021-07-28
ER  -