Okay, I'll start. I'm proud of my school, and the librarians who put this together. Seems like number of issues makes a big difference on number of citations.

Me, too. When I said this list "botched it," I didn't mean to impugn the Citation Study in the slightest -- I'm sure it's accurate for what it is, and I find it very interesting. I meant only that as a guide to journal status, I don't think it's as suitable as my list (although it's obviously an important constituent part).

I like your list, Geoff, probably because it tracks my priors very closely. Of course, my priors are importantly influenced by the inputs to your list, so it's not very surprising that I feel comfortable with it.

I think the top-ten on this list of 30 does not represent the revealed preferences of most professors. Those preferences are most accurately tracked by the expedite process in which professors "trade up" offers from one law review to the next. The pecking order in that process is surprisingly clear and stable over time. Harvard and Yale are at the top and there is little distinction between them in terms of placement prestige. Chicago, Stanford, and Columbia follow next. Virginia follows those three, with Michigan next (and perhaps tied, except that Michigan frequently fails to publish on time), and California and NYU a step down. I have never heard of a professor bargaining for a placement at NYU, California (or Georgetown) over Virginia.

What this top-30 ranking misses is that journals have reputations shaped by factors other than school affiliation and citation rankings. They are known for heavy or light editing, for publishing on time, for working well with authors (or not), etc. This helps to explain why journal rankings differ, sometimes significantly, from the school/citation proxies.