While most social sciences confronted data sharing, transparency, and reproducibility sometime in the last two decades, the legal academy has largely been absent from these discussions. In this study, we examine the degree to which the information underlying empirical studies is available. Using an original dataset of every empirical study published in top law journals from 2010 to 2022, we find that 15% have a dataset that is readily available. We compare these low rates with a dataset of every empirical article published in the top economics, political science, and interdisciplinary journals from 2018 to 2022. The vast majority of these articles (99%) make their data available. Additional analysis demonstrates that disciplinary norms enforced by journals drive when authors make their data available. Given the discrepancy between law and other social sciences, we advocate for a disciplinary and cultural shift in law that embraces data accessibility and identify concrete steps to improve data availability. (JEL K00, K1, K10)

中文翻译：

---

作为集体企业的法律研究：实证法律学术中数据可用性的检验

虽然大多数社会科学在过去二十年的某个时候都面临着数据共享、透明度和可重复性的问题，但法学院基本上没有参与这些讨论。在这项研究中，我们检查了实证研究的信息的可用程度。使用 2010 年至 2022 年顶级法律期刊上发表的每项实证研究的原始数据集，我们发现 15% 的期刊拥有现成的数据集。我们将这些低比率与 2018 年至 2022 年顶级经济学、政治学和跨学科期刊上发表的每一篇实证文章的数据集进行比较。这些文章中的绝大多数 (99%) 都提供了数据。进一步的分析表明，期刊强制执行的纪律规范会影响作者何时提供数据。鉴于法律与其他社会科学之间的差异，我们提倡法律领域的学科和文化转变，包括数据可访问性，并确定提高数据可用性的具体步骤。(JEL K00、K1、K10)