This map shows the geographic impact of David S. Law's research. It shows the number of citations coming from papers published by authors working in each country. You can also color the map by specialization and compare the number of citations received by David S. Law with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites David S. Law more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers produced by David S. Law. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the papers produced by David S. Law. The network helps show where David S. Law may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of David S. Law
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of David S. Law.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of David S. Law based on the total number of
citations received by their joint publications. Widths of edges
represent the number of papers authors have co-authored together.
Node borders
signify the number of papers an author published with David S. Law. David S. Law is excluded from
the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
All Works
20 of 20 papers shown
1.
Law, David S.. (2018). Isolation and Globalization: The Dawn of Legal Education in Bhutan. 9. 41–76.
2.
Law, David S., et al.. (2018). Research Methods in Constitutional Law: A Handbook.1 indexed citations
Przeworski, Adam, Mark Tushnet, Michael Albertus, et al.. (2013). Constitutions in Authoritarian Regimes. Cambridge University Press eBooks.63 indexed citations
6.
Law, David S. & Mila Versteeg. (2012). The Declining Influence of the United States Constitution. 87(3). 762–858.23 indexed citations
7.
Law, David S.. (2011). How to Rig the Federal Courts. The Georgetown law journal. 99(3). 779–836.
8.
Law, David S.. (2011). Why Has Judicial Review Failed in Japan. Open Scholarship Institutional Repository (Washington University in St. Louis). 81(6). 1425–1466.6 indexed citations
9.
Law, David S., et al.. (2011). The Limits of Global Judicial Dialogue. Washington law review. 86(3). 523–577.
10.
Law, David S. & David Zaring. (2010). Law Versus Ideology: The Supreme Court and the Use of Legislative History. William and Mary law review. 51(5). 1653–1748.10 indexed citations
11.
Law, David S., et al.. (2008). Extension of design life of existing maritime infrastructure - A durability perspective. RMIT Research Repository (RMIT University Library).1 indexed citations
12.
Fischman, Joshua B. & David S. Law. (2008). What Is Judicial Ideology, and How Should We Measure It?. Open Scholarship Institutional Repository (Washington University in St. Louis). 29(1). 133–214.25 indexed citations
13.
Law, David S.. (2008). A Theory of Judicial Power and Judicial Review. The Georgetown law journal. 97(3). 723–802.26 indexed citations
14.
Law, David S.. (2007). Globalization and the Future of Constitutional Rights. Northwestern University law review. 102(3). 1277–1350.8 indexed citations
15.
Law, David S.. (2006). Judicial Ideology and the Decision to Publish: Voting and Publication Patterns in Ninth Circuit Asylum Cases. 89(4). 212–219.7 indexed citations
16.
Law, David S.. (2005). Strategic Judicial Lawmaking: Ideology, Publication, and Asylum Law in the Ninth Circuit. University of Cincinnati law review. 73(3). 817–866.14 indexed citations
17.
Law, David S.. (2005). Generic Constitutional Law. Minnesota law review. 89(3). 652–742.1 indexed citations
18.
Law, David S.. (2004). Appointing Federal Judges: The President, the Senate, and the Prisoner's Dilemma. Digital USD (University of San Diego). 26(2). 479–524.2 indexed citations
Rankless uses publication and citation data sourced from OpenAlex, an open and comprehensive
bibliographic database. While OpenAlex provides broad and valuable coverage of the global
research landscape, it—like all bibliographic datasets—has inherent limitations. These include
incomplete records, variations in author disambiguation, differences in journal indexing, and
delays in data updates. As a result, some metrics and network relationships displayed in
Rankless may not fully capture the entirety of a scholar's output or impact.