As in other European countries, there has been a growing pressure on assessing academic research in Switzerland. This also applies to the field of academic legal research. This article, which is based on a survey in Switzerland, aims to explore the assessment procedures and criteria that are used to evaluate academic legal publications and to judge their suitability. In doing so, two important principles have to be respected: first, the suitability of assessment procedures and quality criteria depends on the context and the purpose of the assessment. Additionally, peculiarities of research (and publication) behaviour in academic legal research have to be taken into account. Second, researchers of a certain field need to be involved into the process of defining how to evaluate research (bottom-up approach). On the basis of literature analysis, the actual use and suitability of assessment procedures and criteria were explored in a survey among editors of law journals, law professors, and practitioners (lawyers). Results show that academic legal publications in Switzerland are mainly being assessed by means of (simple) peer review, whereby double-blind peer review procedures are rarely used. There appears to be some common ground among stakeholders concerning appropriate criteria, but the substance of criteria remains unclear. Bibliometric methods and indicators are rarely being used and generally do not yield meaningful results.

中文翻译：

---

评估学术法律出版物的程序和标准：瑞士的一项调查结果

与其他欧洲国家一样，在瑞士评估学术研究的压力也越来越大。这也适用于学术法律研究领域。本文基于瑞士的一项调查，旨在探讨用于评估学术法律出版物并判断其适用性的评估程序和标准。在这样做时，必须遵守两个重要的原则：首先，评估程序和质量标准的适用性取决于评估的背景和目的。此外，必须考虑学术法律研究中研究（和出版）行为的特殊性。其次，某个领域的研究人员需要参与定义如何评估研究的过程（自下而上的方法）。根据文献分析，在法律期刊的编辑，法律教授和从业者（律师）的调查中，探讨了评估程序和标准的实际用途和适用性。结果表明，瑞士的学术法律出版物主要通过（简单的）同行评审进行评估，因此很少使用双盲同行评审程序。利益相关者之间在适当标准上似乎有一些共同点，但标准的实质仍不清楚。文献计量法和指标很少使用，并且通常不会产生有意义的结果。结果表明，瑞士的学术法律出版物主要通过（简单的）同行评审进行评估，因此很少使用双盲同行评审程序。利益相关者之间在适当标准上似乎有一些共同点，但标准的实质仍不清楚。文献计量法和指标很少使用，并且通常不会产生有意义的结果。结果表明，瑞士的学术法律出版物主要通过（简单的）同行评审进行评估，因此很少使用双盲同行评审程序。利益相关者之间在适当标准上似乎有一些共同点，但标准的实质仍不清楚。文献计量法和指标很少使用，并且通常不会产生有意义的结果。