Time and Chance and the Prevailing Orthodoxy in Legal Academia Happeneth to Them All: A Study of the Top Law Journals of Australia and New Zealand

Adelaide Law Review, 33 2: 519-558

Posted: 18 Jun 2015

See all articles by James Allan

James Allan

The University of Queensland - T.C. Beirne School of Law

Anthony Senanayake

Independent

Date Written: 2012

Abstract

This article considers, and tests, the preparedness of Australian law journals to publish dissenting perspectives. The authors looked at all articles that mentioned bills of rights between the dates 1990 and 2010. They considered only law review journals that had been ranked by the ARC as A or A* ones, solely to have a circumscribed list of journals to consider. They then assessed whether each such article was positive about bills of rights, negative about them, neutral, or whether the mention was peripheral. The outcome was at least a 4:1 bias in favour of publishing pro-bill of rights articles, with one or two ARC top ranked journals showing an astounding lopsidedness.

JEL Classification: k00

Suggested Citation

Allan, James and Senanayake, Anthony, Time and Chance and the Prevailing Orthodoxy in Legal Academia Happeneth to Them All: A Study of the Top Law Journals of Australia and New Zealand (2012). Adelaide Law Review, 33 2: 519-558. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2620086

James Allan (Contact Author)

The University of Queensland - T.C. Beirne School of Law ( email )

The University of Queensland
St Lucia
4072 Brisbane, Queensland 4072
Australia

Anthony Senanayake

Independent ( email )

No Address Available

Here is the Coronavirus
related research on SSRN

Paper statistics

Abstract Views
169
PlumX Metrics