↓ Skip to main content

Legal Techniques for Rationalizing Biased Judicial Decisions: Evidence from Experiments with Real Judges

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, July 2019
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
29 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
29 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Legal Techniques for Rationalizing Biased Judicial Decisions: Evidence from Experiments with Real Judges
Published in
Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, July 2019
DOI 10.1111/jels.12229
Authors

John Zhuang Liu, Xueyao Li

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 29 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 7 24%
Professor 4 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 14%
Student > Master 2 7%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 7%
Other 6 21%
Unknown 4 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 12 41%
Unspecified 7 24%
Arts and Humanities 3 10%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 3%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 3%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 5 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 February 2024.
All research outputs
#4,812,138
of 25,443,857 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Empirical Legal Studies
#133
of 344 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#88,863
of 359,880 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Empirical Legal Studies
#4
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,443,857 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 344 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 359,880 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.