This Article analyzes the inconsistency between different document review efforts on the same document collection to determine whether that inconsistency is due primarily to ambiguity in applying the definition of responsiveness to particular documents, or due primarily to human error. By examining documents from the TREC 2009 Legal Track, the Authors show that inconsistent assessments regarding the same documents are due in large part to human error. Therefore, the quality of a review effort is not simply a matter of opinion; it is possible to show objectively that some reviews, and some review methods, are better than others.
Recommended CitationMaura R. Grossman and Gordon V. Cormack, Inconsistent Responsiveness Determination in Document Review: Difference of Opinion or Human Error?, 32 Pace L. Rev. 267 (2012)
Available at: https://digitalcommons.pace.edu/plr/vol32/iss2/1