[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-1-en-105":3,"doc-seo-287056-105":53,"doc-detail-287056-en":126},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,14,19,24,29,34,39,44,49],{"id":8,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":11,"show_sort_weight":12,"slug":13},11,1,"Template","Presentations",90,"presentations",{"id":15,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":16,"show_sort_weight":17,"slug":18},12,"Resumes",80,"resumes",{"id":20,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":21,"show_sort_weight":22,"slug":23},14,"Invoices",70,"invoices",{"id":25,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":26,"show_sort_weight":27,"slug":28},15,"Posters",60,"posters",{"id":30,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":31,"show_sort_weight":32,"slug":33},16,"Social Media",50,"social-media",{"id":35,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":36,"show_sort_weight":37,"slug":38},17,"Forms",40,"forms",{"id":40,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":41,"show_sort_weight":42,"slug":43},18,"Letters",30,"letters",{"id":45,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":46,"show_sort_weight":47,"slug":48},21,"Paper Templates",5,"papers-templates",{"id":50,"doc_module":9,"doc_module_name":10,"category_name":51,"show_sort_weight":4,"slug":52},158,"General","general-158",{"code":4,"msg":54,"data":55},"ok",{"site_id":56,"language":57,"slug":58,"title":59,"keywords":60,"description":61,"schema_data":62,"social_meta":119,"head_meta":121,"extra_data":123,"updated_unix":125},105,"en","letterhead-bias-and-the-demographics-of-elite-journal-publications","LETTERHEAD BIAS AND THE DEMOGRAPHICS OF ELITE JOURNAL PUBLICATIONS","","Letterhead bias and the demographics of elite journal publications examines findings from an extensive audit of U.S. law review articles published in the top fifty journals between 2014 and 2018. It analyzes more than 4,500 articles and nearly 6,000 authors to establish letterhead bias as a measurable phenomenon. The study assesses authorship patterns, including practitioner representation, overseas author publication rates, and the relationship between journal ranking and co-authorship. Results also evaluate implications for integrity of student-edited models, conflicts of interest, and institutional decisions affecting hiring, promotion, tenure, and appraisal.",{"@graph":63,"@context":118},[64,80,101],{"@type":65,"itemListElement":66},"BreadcrumbList",[67,71,74,77],{"item":68,"name":69,"@type":70,"position":9},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":72,"name":10,"@type":70,"position":73},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/",2,{"item":75,"name":51,"@type":70,"position":76},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/general/",3,{"item":78,"name":59,"@type":70,"position":79},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/letterhead-bias-and-the-demographics-of-elite-journal-publications/287056/",4,{"url":78,"name":59,"@type":81,"image":82,"author":87,"headline":59,"publisher":90,"fileFormat":93,"inLanguage":57,"description":61,"dateModified":94,"datePublished":95,"encodingFormat":93,"isAccessibleForFree":96,"interactionStatistic":97},"DigitalDocument",{"url":83,"@type":84,"width":85,"height":86},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/letterhead-bias-and-the-demographics-of-elite-journal-publications/287056.png","ImageObject",442,249,{"name":88,"@type":89},"Stanford","Person",{"url":68,"name":91,"@type":92},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-09-20","2026-09-17",true,{"@type":98,"interactionType":99,"userInteractionCount":76},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":100},"ViewAction",{"@type":102,"mainEntity":103},"FAQPage",[104,110,114],{"name":105,"@type":106,"acceptedAnswer":107},"What does the article investigate about U.S. law reviews?","Question",{"text":108,"@type":109},"It investigates letterhead bias and how author demographics and authorship practices vary across elite U.S. law reviews.","Answer",{"name":111,"@type":106,"acceptedAnswer":112},"What data and time period does the study use?",{"text":113,"@type":109},"The audit covers articles published in the top fifty U.S. law reviews from 2014 to 2018, analyzing over 4,500 articles and nearly 6,000 authors.",{"name":115,"@type":106,"acceptedAnswer":116},"What conclusions does the article draw for authors and editorial boards?",{"text":117,"@type":109},"The findings challenge assumptions about journal ranking, practitioner representation, overseas authors’ chances, and co-authorship trends, arguing for stronger protections against conflicts of interest and for fully blind selection to improve integrity.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":78,"og:type":120,"og:title":59,"og:site_name":91,"og:description":61},"article",{"robots":122,"canonical":78},"index,follow",{"doc_id":124,"site_id":56},287056,1789631844,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":127},{"doc_id":124,"user_id":128,"nickname":88,"user_avatar":129,"doc_module":9,"category_id":50,"category_name":51,"doc_title":59,"doc_description":61,"doc_content":130,"file_id":131,"file_url":132,"file_type":133,"file_size":134,"view_count":76,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":9,"is_downloadable":9,"audit_status":9,"page_count":135,"language":136,"language_code":57,"site_id":56,"html_lang":57,"table_of_contents":137,"faqs":138,"seo_title":139,"seo_description":61,"update_tm":125,"read_time":140},2336477552062,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_994ba38a5ba835b3df7d355c54d3ed8d","LETTERHEAD BIAS AND THE DEMOGRAPHICS OF ELITE JOURNAL PUBLICATIONS  \nStephen Thomson*  \nTABLE OF CONTENTS  \nI. INTRODUCTION..............................................................................204  \nII. METHODOLOGY ...........................................................................207  \nIII. LETTERHEAD BIAS......................................................................210  \nIV. SELF-PUBLICATION ....................................................................221  \nV. THERE’S A WHOLE WORLD OUT THERE: OVERSEAS AUTHORS ......................................................................................236  \nVI. PRACTITIONERS ’ PREDICAMENT: ACADEMIC, PRACTITIONER, AND JUDICIAL AUTHORSHIP ................................245  \nVII. TO SHARE OR NOT TO SHARE?: SOLE AUTHORSHIP AND CO-AUTHORSHIP ...........................................................................254  \nVIII. DIGEST AND CONCLUSION .......................................................258  \nANNEX 1: AUDITED LAW REVIEWS AND JOURNAL MEDIAN ASSIGNED SCORES ........................................................................264  \nANNEX 2: U.S. NEWS RANKINGS 2019 AND INSTITUTIONAL ASSIGNED SCORES ........................................................................266  \nThis article is the result of the most extensive audit of U.S. law review articles ever undertaken. It presents and discusses the findings of an audit of articles published in the top fifty U.S. law reviews from 2014– 2018 inclusive. Analyzing over 4,500 articles and the demographics of almost 6,000 authors, it demonstrates through hard data that: (i) letterhead bias is a  \n* Associate Professor of Law, City University of Hong Kong; LL.B. (Hons.), LL.M. (Res.), Ph.D., Dip. L.P., University of Edinburgh. I owe a debt of gratitude to Ally Lau and Frankie Wong for excellent research assistance. I would also like to thank Wu Jing for assistance with statistical modelling, Kyle Thomson for advice on spreadsheet complexities, Michael D. Cicchini and King Fung Tsang for helpful discussions on the subject matter of the article, various student editors and staff members for confidential discussions on journal and institutional practices, and the editors of the Harvard Journal of Law & Technology for outstanding editorial work. Any errors, and the views expressed, remain my own.  \nreal phenomenon; (ii) some journals have high rates ofpublishing their own faculty’s work, a phenomenon that tends to be worse in higher-ranked journals;  \n(iii) overseas authors stand a very low probability of being published in a top fifty [U.S. law](U.S. law) review;  \n(iv) there is no real correlation between a journal’s  \nranking and the extent to which it publishes practitioner-authored work; and (v) articles in more highly rankedjournals have a greater tendency toward being co-authored.  \nThese findings reveal some hard truths about the elite U.S. law review market, grounded in hard data, both for aspiring authors and editorial boards across the U.S. They further question the integrity and credibility of the student-edited journal model and have profound implications including for hiring; promotion; tenure; performance appraisal; and the extent to which rankings, perceptions, and biases operate as surrogates for an informed assessment of merits. Institutions must do better to ensure quality journal scholarship and to protect student editors from conflicts of interest and self-serving faculty. The paper concludes that only the universal adoption of a fully blind article selection process can offer redemption.  \nI. INTRODUCTION  \nRumors abound in corridors, faculty lounges, and “angsting threads”1 across the U. S.: what can I do to maximize my chances of placing an article in a top journal? Should I target some journals while avoiding others? Will my institutional affiliation help or hinder my chances of publication? Do some journals largely act as a vehicle for publishing their own faculty members","cbCaiuM6qC0hV3zn","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaiuM6qC0hV3zn","pdf",1577870,65,"English","# Introduction\n# Methodology\n# Letterhead Bias\n# Self-Publication\n# Overseas Authors\n# Authorship Types and Judicial/Practitioner Roles\n# Sole vs Co-Authorship\n# Digest and Conclusion\n# Annex 1: Audited Law Reviews and Journal Median Assigned Scores\n# Annex 2: U.S. News Rankings 2019 and Institutional Assigned Scores","[{\"question\":\"What does the article investigate about U.S. law reviews?\",\"answer\":\"It investigates letterhead bias and how author demographics and authorship practices vary across elite U.S. law reviews.\"},{\"question\":\"What data and time period does the study use?\",\"answer\":\"The audit covers articles published in the top fifty U.S. law reviews from 2014 to 2018, analyzing over 4,500 articles and nearly 6,000 authors.\"},{\"question\":\"What conclusions does the article draw for authors and editorial boards?\",\"answer\":\"The findings challenge assumptions about journal ranking, practitioner representation, overseas authors’ chances, and co-authorship trends, arguing for stronger protections against conflicts of interest and for fully blind selection to improve integrity.\"}]","LETTERHEAD BIAS AND THE DEMOGRAPHICS OF ELITE JOURNAL PUBLICATIONS | PDF",23]