Example of Journal of Tort Law format
Recent searches

Example of Journal of Tort Law format Example of Journal of Tort Law format Example of Journal of Tort Law format Example of Journal of Tort Law format Example of Journal of Tort Law format Example of Journal of Tort Law format Example of Journal of Tort Law format Example of Journal of Tort Law format Example of Journal of Tort Law format Example of Journal of Tort Law format Example of Journal of Tort Law format Example of Journal of Tort Law format Example of Journal of Tort Law format Example of Journal of Tort Law format Example of Journal of Tort Law format Example of Journal of Tort Law format
Sample paper formatted on SciSpace - SciSpace
This content is only for preview purposes. The original open access content can be found here.
Look Inside
Example of Journal of Tort Law format Example of Journal of Tort Law format Example of Journal of Tort Law format Example of Journal of Tort Law format Example of Journal of Tort Law format Example of Journal of Tort Law format Example of Journal of Tort Law format Example of Journal of Tort Law format Example of Journal of Tort Law format Example of Journal of Tort Law format Example of Journal of Tort Law format Example of Journal of Tort Law format Example of Journal of Tort Law format Example of Journal of Tort Law format Example of Journal of Tort Law format Example of Journal of Tort Law format
Sample paper formatted on SciSpace - SciSpace
This content is only for preview purposes. The original open access content can be found here.
open access Open Access

Journal of Tort Law — Template for authors

Publisher: De Gruyter
Categories Rank Trend in last 3 yrs
Law #465 of 722 down down by 172 ranks
journal-quality-icon Journal quality:
Medium
calendar-icon Last 4 years overview: 42 Published Papers | 20 Citations
indexed-in-icon Indexed in: Scopus
last-updated-icon Last updated: 20/06/2020
Related journals
Insights
General info
Top papers
Popular templates
Get started guide
Why choose from SciSpace
FAQ

Related Journals

open access Open Access
recommended Recommended

Taylor and Francis

Quality:  
High
CiteRatio: 6.3
SJR: 2.156
SNIP: 2.402
open access Open Access

Taylor and Francis

Quality:  
High
CiteRatio: 1.9
SJR: 0.297
SNIP: 1.707
open access Open Access
recommended Recommended

Taylor and Francis

Quality:  
High
CiteRatio: 1.7
SJR: 0.483
SNIP: 1.338
open access Open Access
recommended Recommended

Springer

Quality:  
High
CiteRatio: 3.2
SJR: 0.921
SNIP: 2.219

Journal Performance & Insights

CiteRatio

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR)

Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP)

A measure of average citations received per peer-reviewed paper published in the journal.

Measures weighted citations received by the journal. Citation weighting depends on the categories and prestige of the citing journal.

Measures actual citations received relative to citations expected for the journal's category.

0.5

CiteRatio for Journal of Tort Law from 2016 - 2020
Year Value
2020 0.5
2019 0.5
2018 0.8
2017 0.8
2016 0.9
graph view Graph view
table view Table view

0.206

57% from 2019

SJR for Journal of Tort Law from 2016 - 2020
Year Value
2020 0.206
2019 0.131
2018 0.415
2017 0.139
2016 0.26
graph view Graph view
table view Table view

0.697

145% from 2019

SNIP for Journal of Tort Law from 2016 - 2020
Year Value
2020 0.697
2019 0.285
2018 2.03
2017 0.317
2016 0.506
graph view Graph view
table view Table view

insights Insights

  • This journal’s CiteRatio is in the top 10 percentile category.

insights Insights

  • SJR of this journal has increased by 57% in last years.
  • This journal’s SJR is in the top 10 percentile category.

insights Insights

  • SNIP of this journal has increased by 145% in last years.
  • This journal’s SNIP is in the top 10 percentile category.

Journal of Tort Law

Guideline source: View

All company, product and service names used in this website are for identification purposes only. All product names, trademarks and registered trademarks are property of their respective owners.

Use of these names, trademarks and brands does not imply endorsement or affiliation. Disclaimer Notice

De Gruyter

Journal of Tort Law

Approved by publishing and review experts on SciSpace, this template is built as per for Journal of Tort Law formatting guidelines as mentioned in De Gruyter author instructions. The current version was created on 20 Jun 2020 and has been used by 875 authors to write and format their manuscripts to this journal.

Law

i
Last updated on
20 Jun 2020
i
ISSN
1932-9148
i
Impact Factor
High - 1.186
i
Open Access
No
i
Sherpa RoMEO Archiving Policy
Yellow faq
i
Plagiarism Check
Available via Turnitin
i
Endnote Style
Download Available
i
Bibliography Name
unsrt
i
Citation Type
Numbered
[25]
i
Bibliography Example
C. W. J. Beenakker. Specular andreev reflection in graphene. Phys. Rev. Lett., 97(6):067007, 2006.

Top papers written in this journal

open accessOpen access Journal Article DOI: 10.2202/1932-9148.1040
Liability Externalities and Mandatory Choices: Should Doctors Pay Less?
Robert D. Cooter1, Ariel Porat2
04 Jan 2006 - Journal of Tort Law

Abstract:

According to legal principles, a driver who negligently breaks a pedestrian’s leg should pay the same damages as a doctor who negligently breaks a patient’s leg. According to economic principles, however, the driver should pay more than the doctor. Non-negligent drivers impose risk on others without being liable for it. When ... According to legal principles, a driver who negligently breaks a pedestrian’s leg should pay the same damages as a doctor who negligently breaks a patient’s leg. According to economic principles, however, the driver should pay more than the doctor. Non-negligent drivers impose risk on others without being liable for it. When liability externalities are mainly negative as with driving, liability should increase beyond full compensation to discourage the activity. Unlike pedestrians, patients contract with doctors for treatment and willingly submit to the risk of harm. Imperfections in medical markets cause some kinds of doctors to convey more positive than negative externalities on their patients. Increasing liability for these doctors would discourage an activity that needs encouragement. The argument for decreasing doctors’ liability is especially strong when doctors must choose among risky procedures, such as cesarean or vaginal delivery of a baby, which we call a “mandatory choice”. Given equal benefits, the doctor ought to choose the least risky alternative. If the doctor negligently chooses a more risky alternative and harm materializes, courts award damages equal to the harm suffered by the patient. Even without the doctor’s faulty choice, however, the patient would have been exposed to the least risky alternative. Economic efficiency requires reducing the doctor’s liability below the victim’s actual harm, which current legal rules usually prohibit. We propose that legislatures give courts the choice of lowering tort damages for doctors in well defined circumstances, and for their mandatory choices in particular, and we suggest some principles for doing so. ∗Robert Cooter is Herman Selvin Professor of Law, University of California at Berkeley. Ariel Porat is Alain Poher Professor of Law, Tel Aviv University Faculty of Law and Visiting Professor, University of Chicago Law School (Fall 2006). For helpful comments we wish to thank Jennifer Arlen, Ronen Avraham, Richard Craswell, Mark Geistfeld, Keith Hylton, Barak Medina, Ronen Perry, Mitch Polinsky, Steve Sugarman, Omri Yadlin, the participants in the law and economics workshops at Berkeley and Stanford, and the participants in the conference, “Tort Law and the Modern State”, Columbia University School of Law, 15-16 September 2006. We thank Arik Rosen and Jennifer Shakbatur for excellent research assistance. read more read less

Topics:

Tort (60%)60% related to the paper, Damages (53%)53% related to the paper, Harm (51%)51% related to the paper, Liability (51%)51% related to the paper
View PDF
61 Citations
open accessOpen access Journal Article DOI: 10.1515/JTL-2018-0013
Evaluating Credibility of Witnesses – are We Instructing Jurors on Invalid Factors?
25 Oct 2018 - Journal of Tort Law

Abstract:

Co-author Aldert Vrij, Ph.D., an internationally respected expert on evaluating credibility and the European Consortium of Psychological Research on Deception Detection’s contact person, presented an educational lecture program concerning the fallacy of considering nonverbal behavior to evaluate credibility at the 2016 Pennsy... Co-author Aldert Vrij, Ph.D., an internationally respected expert on evaluating credibility and the European Consortium of Psychological Research on Deception Detection’s contact person, presented an educational lecture program concerning the fallacy of considering nonverbal behavior to evaluate credibility at the 2016 Pennsylvania Conference of State Trial Judges. Many of the judges listening to Dr Vrij, wondered why then, do judges consistently instruct jurors to consider demeanor and other nonverbal behaviors to evaluate witnesses’ credibility? Why do we ignore the overwhelming scientific evidence and continue to give jury instructions contrary to the overwhelming consensus that witness demeanor is not a basis to determine the accuracy or truthfulness of their testimony? Many years ago, co-author Jeannine Turgeon attended United States Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s lecture “Trial by Jury–In Need of Repair” at The Chautauqua Institute. Justice O’Connor criticized various aspects of our current jury system and offered suggestions for its improvement. She opined that “[j]ust because something has ‘always been done’ a particular way does not mean that is the best way to do it. If common sense tells us to change something, we should change it.” read more read less

Topics:

Credibility (63%)63% related to the paper
View PDF
13 Citations
Journal Article DOI: 10.2202/1932-9148.1050
The Tradeoffs between Regulation and Litigation: Evidence from Insurance Class Actions
Eric Helland1, Jonathan Klick2
17 Oct 2007 - Journal of Tort Law

Abstract:

Law and economics scholars generally view regulation and litigation as substitutes in the task of deterring potentially harmful conduct. Existing normative models suggest that the desirable mix of regulation and litigation will depend on a number of variables, but all largely agree that, on the margin, optimality requires tha... Law and economics scholars generally view regulation and litigation as substitutes in the task of deterring potentially harmful conduct. Existing normative models suggest that the desirable mix of regulation and litigation will depend on a number of variables, but all largely agree that, on the margin, optimality requires that as public regulation increases, private litigation should decline and vice versa. To investigate whether this condition holds, we examine the factors that affect plaintiffs attorneys’ decisions about where and when to file class actions using a unique dataset covering the class action experience of 130 insurance companies during the period 1992 to 2002. We find no evidence to support the proposition that public regulation and private litigation function as substitute channels to deter harmful behavior. In fact, we find some evidence that litigation and regulation tend to piggy-back on each other at least in the insurance industry. More important in the attorneys’ filing decisions is whether or not cases regarding the same general allegation and cases filed in the same state have been successful in the past. read more read less

Topics:

Class action (59%)59% related to the paper, Insurance law (58%)58% related to the paper, Casualty insurance (57%)57% related to the paper, Insurance policy (54%)54% related to the paper, Tort (51%)51% related to the paper
12 Citations
Journal Article DOI: 10.2202/1932-9148.1043
Why the FDA Must Preempt Tort Litigation: A Critique of Chevron Deference and a Response to Richard Nagareda
04 Jan 2006 - Journal of Tort Law

Abstract:

This article critiques Richard Nagareda's proposal to use the promise of the legal preemption of tort suits as a carrot to stimulate pharmaceutical companies to generate more information about the adverse side effects of their drugs. Its first section critiques the traditional view that FDA warnings function as an initial for... This article critiques Richard Nagareda's proposal to use the promise of the legal preemption of tort suits as a carrot to stimulate pharmaceutical companies to generate more information about the adverse side effects of their drugs. Its first section critiques the traditional view that FDA warnings function as an initial form of consumer protection that is thereafter backstopped by tort remedies. The chief vice of this system is systematic overdeterrence of drug use, by treating FDA warnings as though they were only minimums when in many cases they were too severe. The article examines the modern \"presumption against preemption\" and urges the adoption of a contrary position whereby the comprehensive nature of FDA regulation should be treated as occupying the field. The article then discusses the recent FDA efforts to secure that result through its own interpretive preamble. That approach might yield the correct approach in any individual case, based on a presumption of judicial deference to administrative decisions under the Chevron doctrine. On balance, however, the Chevron approach runs the enormous risk of agency flip-flop, driven by powerful political forces. Accordingly, the wiser approach treats preemption as a matter of law to be decided by judges without deference. The article also contains an evaluation of the modern decisions that have examined federal preemption in duty to warn cases, and concludes that modern technology provides so many sources of information about drug side effects that we should reject the Nagareda proposal to tie FDA protection against tort suits to the provision of additional information to the FDA. read more read less

Topics:

Deference (59%)59% related to the paper, Chevron (geology) (57%)57% related to the paper, Tort reform (54%)54% related to the paper
10 Citations
open accessOpen access Journal Article DOI: 10.1515/JTL-2017-0029
Technological triggers to tort revolutions: steam locomotives, autonomous vehicles, and accident compensation
Donald G. Gifford1
25 Sep 2018 - Journal of Tort Law

Abstract:

Waves of technological change explain the most important transformations of American tort law. In this Article, I begin by examining historical instances of this linkage. Following the Industrial Revolution, for example, machines, no longer humans and animals, powered production. With greater force, locomotives and other mach... Waves of technological change explain the most important transformations of American tort law. In this Article, I begin by examining historical instances of this linkage. Following the Industrial Revolution, for example, machines, no longer humans and animals, powered production. With greater force, locomotives and other machines inflicted far more severe injuries. These dramatic technological changes prompted the replacement of the preexisting strict liability tort standard with the negligence regime. Similarly, later technological changes caused the enactment of workers’ compensation statutes, the implementation of automobile no-fault systems in some states and routinized automobile settlement practices in others that resemble a no-fault system, and the adoption of “strict” products liability. From this history, I derive a model explaining how technological innovation alters (1) the frequency of personal injuries, (2) the severity of such injuries, (3) the difficulty of proving claims, and (4) the new technology’s social utility. These four factors together determine the choice among three liability standards: strict liability, negligence, and no-fault liability with limited damages. I then apply this model to the looming technological revolution in which autonomous vehicles, robots, and other Artificial Intelligence machines will replace human decision-making as well as human force. I conclude that the liability system governing autonomous vehicles is likely to be one similar to the workers’ compensation system in which the victim is relieved of the requirement of proving which party acted tortiously and caused the accident. read more read less

Topics:

Strict liability (69%)69% related to the paper, Tort (61%)61% related to the paper, Technological revolution (56%)56% related to the paper, Liability (54%)54% related to the paper, Technological change (53%)53% related to the paper
View PDF
6 Citations
Author Pic

SciSpace is a very innovative solution to the formatting problem and existing providers, such as Mendeley or Word did not really evolve in recent years.

- Andreas Frutiger, Researcher, ETH Zurich, Institute for Biomedical Engineering

Get MS-Word and LaTeX output to any Journal within seconds
1
Choose a template
Select a template from a library of 40,000+ templates
2
Import a MS-Word file or start fresh
It takes only few seconds to import
3
View and edit your final output
SciSpace will automatically format your output to meet journal guidelines
4
Submit directly or Download
Submit to journal directly or Download in PDF, MS Word or LaTeX

(Before submission check for plagiarism via Turnitin)

clock Less than 3 minutes

What to expect from SciSpace?

Speed and accuracy over MS Word

''

With SciSpace, you do not need a word template for Journal of Tort Law.

It automatically formats your research paper to De Gruyter formatting guidelines and citation style.

You can download a submission ready research paper in pdf, LaTeX and docx formats.

Time comparison

Time taken to format a paper and Compliance with guidelines

Plagiarism Reports via Turnitin

SciSpace has partnered with Turnitin, the leading provider of Plagiarism Check software.

Using this service, researchers can compare submissions against more than 170 million scholarly articles, a database of 70+ billion current and archived web pages. How Turnitin Integration works?

Turnitin Stats
Publisher Logos

Freedom from formatting guidelines

One editor, 100K journal formats – world's largest collection of journal templates

With such a huge verified library, what you need is already there.

publisher-logos

Easy support from all your favorite tools

Journal of Tort Law format uses unsrt citation style.

Automatically format and order your citations and bibliography in a click.

SciSpace allows imports from all reference managers like Mendeley, Zotero, Endnote, Google Scholar etc.

Frequently asked questions

1. Can I write Journal of Tort Law in LaTeX?

Absolutely not! Our tool has been designed to help you focus on writing. You can write your entire paper as per the Journal of Tort Law guidelines and auto format it.

2. Do you follow the Journal of Tort Law guidelines?

Yes, the template is compliant with the Journal of Tort Law guidelines. Our experts at SciSpace ensure that. If there are any changes to the journal's guidelines, we'll change our algorithm accordingly.

3. Can I cite my article in multiple styles in Journal of Tort Law?

Of course! We support all the top citation styles, such as APA style, MLA style, Vancouver style, Harvard style, and Chicago style. For example, when you write your paper and hit autoformat, our system will automatically update your article as per the Journal of Tort Law citation style.

4. Can I use the Journal of Tort Law templates for free?

Sign up for our free trial, and you'll be able to use all our features for seven days. You'll see how helpful they are and how inexpensive they are compared to other options, Especially for Journal of Tort Law.

5. Can I use a manuscript in Journal of Tort Law that I have written in MS Word?

Yes. You can choose the right template, copy-paste the contents from the word document, and click on auto-format. Once you're done, you'll have a publish-ready paper Journal of Tort Law that you can download at the end.

6. How long does it usually take you to format my papers in Journal of Tort Law?

It only takes a matter of seconds to edit your manuscript. Besides that, our intuitive editor saves you from writing and formatting it in Journal of Tort Law.

7. Where can I find the template for the Journal of Tort Law?

It is possible to find the Word template for any journal on Google. However, why use a template when you can write your entire manuscript on SciSpace , auto format it as per Journal of Tort Law's guidelines and download the same in Word, PDF and LaTeX formats? Give us a try!.

8. Can I reformat my paper to fit the Journal of Tort Law's guidelines?

Of course! You can do this using our intuitive editor. It's very easy. If you need help, our support team is always ready to assist you.

9. Journal of Tort Law an online tool or is there a desktop version?

SciSpace's Journal of Tort Law is currently available as an online tool. We're developing a desktop version, too. You can request (or upvote) any features that you think would be helpful for you and other researchers in the "feature request" section of your account once you've signed up with us.

10. I cannot find my template in your gallery. Can you create it for me like Journal of Tort Law?

Sure. You can request any template and we'll have it setup within a few days. You can find the request box in Journal Gallery on the right side bar under the heading, "Couldn't find the format you were looking for like Journal of Tort Law?”

11. What is the output that I would get after using Journal of Tort Law?

After writing your paper autoformatting in Journal of Tort Law, you can download it in multiple formats, viz., PDF, Docx, and LaTeX.

12. Is Journal of Tort Law's impact factor high enough that I should try publishing my article there?

To be honest, the answer is no. The impact factor is one of the many elements that determine the quality of a journal. Few of these factors include review board, rejection rates, frequency of inclusion in indexes, and Eigenfactor. You need to assess all these factors before you make your final call.

13. What is Sherpa RoMEO Archiving Policy for Journal of Tort Law?

SHERPA/RoMEO Database

We extracted this data from Sherpa Romeo to help researchers understand the access level of this journal in accordance with the Sherpa Romeo Archiving Policy for Journal of Tort Law. The table below indicates the level of access a journal has as per Sherpa Romeo's archiving policy.

RoMEO Colour Archiving policy
Green Can archive pre-print and post-print or publisher's version/PDF
Blue Can archive post-print (ie final draft post-refereeing) or publisher's version/PDF
Yellow Can archive pre-print (ie pre-refereeing)
White Archiving not formally supported
FYI:
  1. Pre-prints as being the version of the paper before peer review and
  2. Post-prints as being the version of the paper after peer-review, with revisions having been made.

14. What are the most common citation types In Journal of Tort Law?

The 5 most common citation types in order of usage for Journal of Tort Law are:.

S. No. Citation Style Type
1. Author Year
2. Numbered
3. Numbered (Superscripted)
4. Author Year (Cited Pages)
5. Footnote

15. How do I submit my article to the Journal of Tort Law?

It is possible to find the Word template for any journal on Google. However, why use a template when you can write your entire manuscript on SciSpace , auto format it as per Journal of Tort Law's guidelines and download the same in Word, PDF and LaTeX formats? Give us a try!.

16. Can I download Journal of Tort Law in Endnote format?

Yes, SciSpace provides this functionality. After signing up, you would need to import your existing references from Word or Bib file to SciSpace. Then SciSpace would allow you to download your references in Journal of Tort Law Endnote style according to Elsevier guidelines.

Fast and reliable,
built for complaince.

Instant formatting to 100% publisher guidelines on - SciSpace.

Available only on desktops 🖥

No word template required

Typset automatically formats your research paper to Journal of Tort Law formatting guidelines and citation style.

Verifed journal formats

One editor, 100K journal formats.
With the largest collection of verified journal formats, what you need is already there.

Trusted by academicians

I spent hours with MS word for reformatting. It was frustrating - plain and simple. With SciSpace, I can draft my manuscripts and once it is finished I can just submit. In case, I have to submit to another journal it is really just a button click instead of an afternoon of reformatting.

Andreas Frutiger
Researcher & Ex MS Word user
Use this template