As I'm working up some thoughts on the use of the social sciences citation index as a companion to westlaw citation searches, I've been looking a little at the journals that the ssci already uses. Couple of things of some interest here — they index 35 student-edited, general subject law reviews (and about twice that number of specialized journals). So that alone has me thinking — what journals do they employ? Does that tell us something about ranking of journals?
The journals are (in order of rank according to the gold-standard, i.e., Washington and Lee Law Library's rankings): Harvard Law Review, Yale Law Journal, Columbia Law Review, Stanford Law Review, New York University Law Review, California Law Review, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Georgetown Law Journal, Virginia Law Review, Cornell Law Review, Texas Law Review, University of Chicago Law Review, UCLA Law Review, Michigan Law Review, Northwestern University Law Review, Minnesota Law Review, Fordham Law Review, Vanderbilt Law Review, Duke Law Journal, Southern California Law Review, Iowa Law Review, Notre Dame Law Review, University of Illinois Law Review, Boston University Law Review, Hastings Law Journal, Wisconsin Law Review, Indiana Law Journal, University of Cincinnati Law Review, George Washington Law Review, Washington Law Review, Buffalo Law Review, University of Pittsburgh Law Review, Catholic University Law Review, Rutgers Law Review, and Denver University Law Review.
Many of the usual suspects are there — and few that aren't quite the usual suspects. Want to see those reviews' W&L ranking? Here's a table that lists the reviews by rank. Pretty interesting, isn't it? All of the top 19 reviews are in ssci; it skips over William and Mary (20), North Carolina Law Review (24), Emory Law Journal (27), and UC Davis (28) — and is selective after 29. So it misses such leading reviews as Boston College (30), Ohio State (31), and Cardozo (32). It picks up some important journals (like Wisconsin, Indiana, and George Washington). It also has the Buffalo Law Review (56), Pitt Law Review (61), Catholic Law Review (71), Rutgers Law Review (80), and Denver Law Review (110).
I usually don't care much for people who complain about how rankings are unfairly biased against their schools. "Yeah, do what everyone else does and make up a ranking system on which you do well!" (That's my usual response.) However, in this case — since my school's involved — I can't resist noting that the North Carolina Law Review is missing here.
In case you're interested in some of my more considered thoughts on citation rankings of law reviews and their relationship to law school rankings, they're available here.
About the illustration: This Philadelphia boy couldn't resist the temptation to use a picture of the ISI's building on Market Street in west Philly. The building's exterior is supposed to represent an IBM punch card. I think it's really cool; but it's also a reminder of how quickly technology changes and how quickly what once appears modern looks well, out of date. Even in the early 1980s when I was an undergraduate and I'd walk by the building I thought it rather quaint looking.
Update as of April 10, 2010: I've added an illustration of ISI's building, which I took on Tuesday when I was in Philly.
The photo is very interesting. Judging from the parked cars in the foreground, it must have been taken years ago. I like the building, too, but I agree that there is a very fine line between retro and dated. I suppose the key is to aim for "timeless," which can never really suit technology because it's always evolving.