Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Analysis of tenure portfolios indicates shifting expectations and growing publication variety in law, suggesting new metrics for scholarly impact.
As expectations for research output evolve, tenure portfolios serve as valuable records of how a field gauges impact. We analyze the records of 184 Law and Courts faculty at PhD-granting institutions and find that the median portfolio has grown from seven to ten peer-reviewed articles, that scholars publish in a wider variety of outlets, and that coauthorship rates have doubled over our four-decade time period. We also note patterns of gendered collaboration and private-institution advantages. These trends suggest shifting tenure expectations, complicate traditional metrics of impact, and underscore the need to initiate data-driven conversations about scholarly impact in an increasingly multidisciplinary field.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Matthews et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: