Benchmarks for Australian Law Researchers’ H-Index and Citation Count Bibliometrics

This article reports on Australian-based law researchers’ bibliometric measures, as recorded on Google Scholar in September 2024. It presents benchmark findings by academic position for H-index and raw citation count. In the context of the shift towards—and the need for—more nuanced and sophisticated research assessment measures, this article provides guidance to the Australian legal academy on Australian-specific data in relation to existing bibliometric measures. At the same time, it acknowledges the significant limits of using Google Scholar as a repository and the use of bibliometric measures more generally. It therefore reflects on ways of living with bibliometrics in the context of the neoliberal university and digital capitalism. Disclosure Statement: The first author serves as an Editor for Law, Technology and Humans. To maintain the integrity of the publication process and to comply with the COPE guidelines, the article submission, blind peer review, and revisions were conducted independently of the Journal’s publishing environment.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Law Technology and Humans
Published
2025-03-16
DOI
https://doi.org/10.5204/lthj.3780
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Legal Education and Practice Innovations
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
15.98
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Benchmarks for Australian Law Researchers’ H-Index and Citation Count Bibliometrics

Kieran Tranter, Timothy D. Peters
1 citations
Law Technology and Humans
Legal Education and Practice Innovations
15.98
article

Benchmarks for Australian Law Researchers’ H-Index and Citation Count Bibliometrics

Kieran Tranter, Timothy D. Peters
article en
1 citations

Abstract

This article reports on Australian-based law researchers’ bibliometric measures, as recorded on Google Scholar in September 2024. It presents benchmark findings by academic position for H-index and raw citation count. In the context of the shift towards—and the need for—more nuanced and sophisticated research assessment measures, this article provides guidance to the Australian legal academy on Australian-specific data in relation to existing bibliometric measures. At the same time, it acknowledges the significant limits of using Google Scholar as a repository and the use of bibliometric measures more generally. It therefore reflects on ways of living with bibliometrics in the context of the neoliberal university and digital capitalism. Disclosure Statement: The first author serves as an Editor for Law, Technology and Humans. To maintain the integrity of the publication process and to comply with the COPE guidelines, the article submission, blind peer review, and revisions were conducted independently of the Journal’s publishing environment.

Law Technology and Humans
Queensland University of Technology (AU), University of the Sunshine Coast (AU)
Openalex Percentile: Top 4%
Legal Education and Practice Innovations
15.98
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.