% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded.  This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.

@ARTICLE{Chin:1022285,
      author       = {Chin, Jason M and DeHaven, Alexander C and Heycke, Tobias
                      and Holcombe, Alexander O and Mellor, David T and Pickett,
                      Justin T and Steltenpohl, Crystal N and Vazire, Simine and
                      Zeiler, Kathryn},
      title        = {{I}mproving the {C}redibility of {E}mpirical {L}egal
                      {R}esearch: {P}ractical {S}uggestions for {R}esearchers,
                      {J}ournals and {L}aw {S}chools},
      journal      = {Law, technology and humans},
      volume       = {3},
      number       = {1},
      issn         = {2652-4074},
      address      = {Getzville, NY},
      publisher    = {HeinOnline},
      reportid     = {FZJ-2024-01403},
      year         = {2021},
      abstract     = {Fields closely related to empirical legal research (ELR)
                      are enhancing their methods to improve the credibility of
                      their findings. This includes making data, analysis codes
                      and other materials openly available on digital repositories
                      and preregistering studies. There are numerous benefits to
                      these practices, such as research being easier to find and
                      access through digital research methods. However, ELR
                      appears to be lagging cognate fields. This may be partly due
                      to a lack of field-specific meta-research and guidance. We
                      sought to fill that gap by first evaluating credibility
                      indicators in ELR, including a review of guidelines for
                      legal journals. This review finds considerable room for
                      improvement in how law journals regulate ELR. The remainder
                      of the article provides practical guidance for the field. We
                      start with general recommendations for empirical legal
                      researchers and then turn to recommendations aimed at three
                      commonly used empirical legal methods: content analyses of
                      judicial decisions, surveys and qualitative studies. We end
                      with suggestions for journals and law schools.},
      ddc          = {340},
      typ          = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
      doi          = {10.5204/lthj.1875},
      url          = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/1022285},
}