In legal practice, decisions are tested on appeal or by subsequent tribunals.
While this process is currently conducted by paid-for editorial teams, most practitioners rely on citation tools which for any judgment provide links through to subsequent decisions which have, for example, "approved", "considered", "distinguished" (as in disapplied due to different facts, but this can have the practical effect of confining an earlier decision to its particular facts) or "overturned" that decision.
Although Google Scholar seems to provide some authority measure through the "cited by" tool, I've often wondered why academia (or perhaps I've just missed it) hasn't developed a comparable "precedent" system for research.
While this process is currently conducted by paid-for editorial teams, most practitioners rely on citation tools which for any judgment provide links through to subsequent decisions which have, for example, "approved", "considered", "distinguished" (as in disapplied due to different facts, but this can have the practical effect of confining an earlier decision to its particular facts) or "overturned" that decision.
Although Google Scholar seems to provide some authority measure through the "cited by" tool, I've often wondered why academia (or perhaps I've just missed it) hasn't developed a comparable "precedent" system for research.