There is no uniform approach to assessing scholarly publications in legal research. Peer review is still the most accepted form, but the popularity of bibliometrics, such as the impact scores of journals and the citation scores of individual articles is increasing. However, there is no ranking of European law journals and none is likely to materialise any time soon. Comparing the UK, Belgium and the Netherlands, we will demonstrate why both peer review and the use of metrics have serious shortcomings. We believe it is necessary to think about such alternatives as more attention for methodological justification in legal research, more clarity from editorial boards about the quality criteria being used to approve or reject submissions, and more emphasis on standards for different forms of legal scholarship. Last but not least, we call for a Europe-wide debate on the pros and cons of different systems of research assessment, rather than let every country reinvent the wheel.

Apparently, legal scholarship is presently in the throes of an identity crisis (Smits 2012 1). Fundamental doubts are expressed concerning the quality of legal scholarly research. Does it concern itself with the right themes? Are the right questions being asked? Should our approach be revised? What exactly are the criteria for innovative, thorough, and creative legal scholarly research? One hallmark of an identity crisis is that questions regarding the nature, mission, and methods of our field are not asked by others, but that we ourselves are divided and confused on the issue. I would like to attempt to take stock of and analyse this confusion. That will not be enough to resolve the issue, which is much too complicated for that, but I hope to debunk some of the myths. Some debunking is in order, as the discussion involves plenty of ideology, wishful thinking, tunnel vision and internal contradictions. Derogatory remarks are commonplace. Those involved in the discussion show little ability for horizontal learning: much of what we are discussing was thoroughly debated and evaluated in other fields twenty years ago. We could benefit from that experience, if only because it would enable us to avoid making the same mistakes. 42 Recht en Methode in onderzoek en onderwijs 2012 (2) 2 This article from Law and Method is published by Boom juridisch and made available to anonieme bezoeker Exciting Times for Legal Scholarship as an exaggeration is easy to refute-but rather against the present state of affairs. I would prefer to identify this common research merely as legal or legal scholarly research, noting that these are not unified concepts and have any number of shades that are often combined in a given study. However, I will take into account that idiomatic usage is different. 3 Characteristics of legal-dogmatic research Legal-dogmatic research concerns researching current positive law as laid down in written and unwritten European or (inter)national rules, 2 principles, concepts, doctrines, case law and annotations in the literature. 'Its sources are predominantly those that are thrown up by the legal process: principally statutes and decided cases, supplemented where possible with lawyers' literature expounding the rule and occasionally reflecting on them' (McCrudden 2006, p. 634). This current positive law needs to be "treated" within its own limits-often described from an internal perspective-meaning that its own sources are used as a basis for study, description, explanation and analysis into (conflicting) underlying values, presuppositions and principles, as well as for criticism and any needed proposals for improvement. New developments in European or (inter)national case law and legislation, as well as new developments in society, need to be integrated too. The first concern is improving coherence and consistency, creating and streamlining a system. 3 However, this is not its ultimate goal: 'Die Grundfunktion der Dogmatik besteht vor allem darin, Gleichheit, Ungleichheit und Ähnlichkeit transparant zu halten', ...

(pp. 199-277). Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. General rightsCopyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.-Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research -You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain -You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal Take down policyIf you believe that this document breaches copyright, please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim. evaluations and advisory opinions concerning the quality of legislative drafts with the outcomes of ex post evaluations to find out which judgements and predictions were (not) correct in retrospect and which essential flaws were overlooked.

No abstract

No abstract