As expectations for research output evolve, tenure portfolios serve as valuable records of how a field gauges impact. We analyze the records of 184 Law and Courts faculty at PhD-granting institutions and find that the median portfolio has grown from seven to ten peer-reviewed articles, that scholars publish in a wider variety of outlets, and that coauthorship rates have doubled over our four-decade time period. We also note patterns of gendered collaboration and private-institution advantages. These trends suggest shifting tenure expectations, complicate traditional metrics of impact, and underscore the need to initiate data-driven conversations about scholarly impact in an increasingly multidisciplinary field.
