I thought it might be interesting to see if libraries as a whole purchase law reviews rationally, based on citation counts (price might be relevant but I didn't consider that). I've listed below two categories of law reviews, those with impact factors >= 10 and those much lower in the prestige scale with an impact factor of 2. The final number after each law review name is the number of libraries attached to WorldCat records for that journal (regardless of format). If the title changed recently I used whichever library count was higher. So the lines show:
Name Impact-factor-score Citation-count Library-count.
Among the high-impact group there is a very high correlation of 0.933 between citation count and numbers of holding libraries. Among the low-impact group the correlation is much lower (0.579). This perhaps indicates that decisions to purchase/catalog high-impact law reviews are based on fairly accurate assessments of comparative citation counts but that low-impact journals may be acquired for other, or perhaps erratic, reasons.
Impact Factor >= 10
Cornell Law Review 11.4 3129 586
The Yale Law Journal 11.3 5552 1050
Columbia Law Review 11.2 4654 878
Stanford Law Review 10.9 4286 652
New York University Law Review 10.8 3553 820
Virginia Law Review 10.7 3379 667
Harvard Law Review 10.2 6520 1525
Northwestern University Law Review 10.1 2487 514
California Law Review 10 3392 632
Impact Factor = 2
Idaho Law Review 2 370 281
New Mexico Law Review 2 374 263
Nova Law Review 2 353 261
Pace Law Review 2 269 260
Penn State Law Review 2 448 336
Regent University Law Review 2 247 177
Saint Louis University Law Journal 2 944 309
Tulsa Law Review 2 638 274
UMKC Law Review 2 572 286
Vermont Law Review 2 469 260
Widener Law Review 2 289 149
Wyoming Law Review 2 373 208