A study has revealed the profound impact that the UK's Research Assessment Exercises (RAE) and Research Excellence Framework (REF) have had on legal academic publishing over the past three decades. Conducted by Professors Johanna Gibson of Queen Mary University of London and Phillip Johnson of Cardiff University, along with Queen Mary alumnus, the research provides a detailed examination of over 30,000 research outputs published between 1990 and 2021.
The study highlights a notable shift in publication strategies within the legal academic community. Historically prestigious outputs such as textbooks and practitioner texts have seen a decline in favor, with academics and institutions increasingly prioritizing articles over monographs. This shift is particularly striking given that a higher proportion of monographs generally correlates with success in research assessments. The strategic move towards journal articles may reflect the pressures exerted by the RAE and REF on researchers to publish in ways that align more closely with assessment criteria.
The analysis also reveals a significant concentration of research outputs in a small group of high-prestige journals. Notably, the Modern Law Review, Legal Studies, the Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, and the Journal of Law & Society have become dominant players, accounting for over 10% of all journal submissions since 2001. Remarkably, more than 50% of journal submissions come from less than 7% of all journal titles assessed. This trend suggests a narrowing of publication venues, which could potentially limit the diversity of legal scholarship.
The pressure to publish in top-tier generalist journals has influenced the direction of legal research, often steering academics toward topics and methodologies favored by these publications. This trend raises concerns about the potential narrowing of the scope of legal scholarship, particularly in specialist areas. The emphasis on publishing in a select group of journals may inadvertently suppress innovative and interdisciplinary research, as scholars may feel compelled to conform to established norms to achieve high assessment scores.
The study also underscores the challenges faced by early-career researchers in this competitive publishing landscape. The emphasis on top-tier journal publications can create significant barriers to entry, with young academics feeling increased pressure to conform to established research norms. This environment may hinder the development of novel insights and limit the diversity of perspectives in legal scholarship.
The study's findings raise important questions about academic freedom and the potential suppression of innovation in legal research. As scholars gravitate towards conventional topics and formats that are more likely to succeed in assessment exercises, there is a risk that less traditional yet potentially groundbreaking research may be overlooked or undervalued.
In light of these findings, the study offers several recommendations aimed at fostering a more diverse and inclusive legal scholarship landscape:
Re-evaluating Assessment Criteria: The study suggests that research assessments should positively encourage the dissemination of research across a wider range of publication outlets, thereby promoting more diverse and exploratory scholarship. Supporting Publication Diversity: Institutions are encouraged to recognize and support the importance of long-form scholarship and the critical contributions made by specialist journals. Mentorship and Resources for Early-Career Academics: Enhanced support systems are recommended to help emerging scholars navigate the complex publishing landscape and develop their novel insights.
The full study, titled "Thirty Years of Legal Research: An Empirical Analysis of Outputs Submitted to RAE and REF (1990‐2021)," is published in the Modern Law Review and is accessible online.
Click here to read the original press release.
