The need to develop an appropriate and accepted means by which the quality of legal research might be assessed is now pressing. Significant efforts, both in Australia and overseas, herald increasing political attention on the issue, while academics increasingly face pressure from within their own institutions to publish high-quality research. In this climate, we conducted a research project investigating two questions:

(1) whether the ways in which legal research is currently evaluated by individuals and institutions are perceived by researchers as being transparent, fair, and appropriate for the purpose of assessing the quality of legal research and its impact and

(2) whether there are other frameworks which might be better for evaluating the quality and impact of legal research.

This paper deals solely with ‘quality’ assessment’ and details relevant literature and our own empirical findings on the issue. Our research illuminates the effects of different assessment regimes, the extent to which they will support the production of high quality legal research that contributes to national economic and social objectives, and whether it is appropriate for bodies such as the Council of Australian Law Deans to issue a statement on assessment processes for legal research.

This dataset was collected as part of a research project exploring how the quality and impact of legal research are assessed. The study examined whether current methods used by individuals and institutions are perceived by researchers as fair, transparent, and appropriate for evaluating legal research. A total of 275 responses were received from legal academics across Australia, with data collection taking place between 3 July and 18 December 2023. The dataset includes two files: 1. Survey Questions File – Contains the full list of survey items, grouped by theme (e.g., research quality, peer review, funding criteria, journal reputation). It includes both closed-ended Likert-type items and open-ended questions. 2. Survey Responses File – Includes anonymised responses from participants, with each row representing an individual respondent.