Indicators, Rankings and the Political Economy of Academic Production in International Law
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 12186311 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Gerald Gordon (0000-0002-7067-1964, Asser Institute, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2017 |
| Volume | 30 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 295-304 |
| Publication date | 2017-03-07 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Leiden Journal of International Law (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0922-1565 • E-ISSN: 1478-9698 |
| Publisher | Cambridge University Press (CUP) (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1017/s0922156517000188 |
| OpenAlex | W2592628313 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 3 |
Rankings and indicators have been with us for a while now, and have increasingly been objects of attention in international law. Likewise, they have been with the LJIL as a journal for a while now. Our so-called ‘impact factor’ is, to my untrained eye, the most prominent feature on the LJIL webpage hosted by our publisher. So this editorial is something of a rearguard action. The indicators and rankings, however, keep piling up. Proliferation may afford a perverse sort of optimism, about which below but, as will be clear, I do not share it. The increasing number and command of indicators and rankings reflects a consistent trend and a bleak mode of knowledge production. Knowledge production has been a topic in these pages recently, for instance Sara Kendall's excellent editorial on academic production and the politics of inclusion. I mean to continue in that vein, with respect to other aspects of the political economy of the academic production of international law, especially at a nexus of publishing, scholarship and market practices. There is an undeniable element of nostalgia in what will follow, but I do not really mean to celebrate the publishing industry, status quo ante , that has put me in this privileged position to wax nostalgic. The academic publishing business is flawed. What we are preparing the way for is worse. When I say we, I mean to flag my complicity, both as an individual researcher and as an editorial board member. I use the word complicity to convey a personal anxiety, also in my role as editor, so let me be clear: the LJIL board has no policy concerning rankings, and rankings have never influenced review at the journal. Moreover, while I cannot claim to speak for the LJIL as a whole concerning the topic of rankings or any other matter, nor is mine exactly a dissenting voice on the board. The tone of this polemic is mine alone; the concern is not
Economics · Field (mathematics · International political economy · Law and economics · Microeconomics · Nexus (standard · Normative · Political science · Politics · Production (economics · Scholarship · Sociology · Corruption and Economic Development · Law
| Highly cited | No |
|---|