Trend of 100 Top-cited Articles on Agricultural Risk

Proceeding – 2nd Kuala Lumpur International Agriculture, Forestry and Plantation

February 20 – 21, 2016. Hotel Putra, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. ISBN 978-967-13952-0-2

200

TREND OF 100 TOP-CITED ARTICLES ON AGRICULTURAL RISK

Ali Sayyad1*

1 PhD student of Agribusiness,

Department of Agribusiness and information system University Putra Malaysia, Malaysia,

Email: [email protected]

Mohd Mansor Ismail2

2Professor of Food and Agricultural Economics,

Department of Agribusiness and information system University Putra Malaysia, Malaysia,


Nader Ale Ebrahim3

3Research Support Unit, Centre of Research Services,

Institute of Research Management and Monitoring (IPPP), University of Malaya, Malaysia:


ABSTRACT

This study reviews the trend of top-cited risk publications in the field of agricultural economics. The publication data

are downloaded from the database of Science Citation Index (SCI) Web of Science. Citation analysis and statistical

methods are used for nominating and exploring the bibliometric dimensions of the top-cited articles such as top authors,

journals, trends of publication and the performance of institutes and countries. The results display a negative impact of

collaboration of authors and countries on citation, which contradicts the trends in the other fields of study. The results

provide a better understanding of trends in agricultural risk and agricultural economics research, and indicate the

direction for future studies.

Keywords: Risk, Production Risk, Bibliometric analysis, Citation analysis, Agricultural Risk

mailto:[email protected]





201

INTRODUCTION

Risk is an undeniable factor in different agricultural production decisions (Yeager 2011). The existence of unmanaged

risks can damage the stability of firms (Engler-Palma and Hoag 2007) and can impact farmers’ lives and business,

especially in rural sectors (Dillon et al. 2011). The research has been done with regard to considering the risk in

agricultural economics, focused not only on production but also covered other aspects of the supply chain (Purcell and

Hudson 2003). Insurance (Breustedt et al. 2008), the farmer’s attitude (Serra et al. 2008), and the consumer’s attitude

(Horowitz and Carson 1991) toward the risk may affect the farmer’s decision regarding the adoption of technologies

(Yoo, 2012) and green concepts (Gambelli et al. 2014).

Initially, bibliometrics were proposed by Pritchard in 1969 (Tan et al. 2014) to provides information about growth

trends and characteristics of publications (Bajwa et al. 2013) and also examines collaboration between authors, within

institutes and internationally. Bibliometrics constitute a quantitative research method that is widely applied to the

analysis of scientific production (Chuang et al. 2011). Bibliometrics identify the focus of the research and evaluate the

trend of publication (Gedeon et al. 2013). One of the major trends in bibliometrics is to study top-cited articles in

specific fields. Study of the top-cited articles can indicate the evolution of research during a period of time and can

identify those researchers who have made more of an impression in the research area (Ho 2012). The citation index as a

type of bibliometrics method traces the references in a published article (Ale Ebrahim et al. 2014). It shows how many

times an article has been cited by other articles (Fooladi et al. 2013). The avenues through which to evaluate citation

tracking have greatly increased in the past years (Kear and Colbert-Lewis 2011; Ale Ebrahim, Salehi et al. 2014). The

frequency of citation of the publication is assumed to display the impact of publication, but not necessarily its quality

(Brandt et al. 2010). Evidently, the citation count alone does not suffice to provide a complete set of criteria for judging

the quality of a scientific paper, in particular when numerous mechanisms exist to boost the citations of a paper (Ale

Ebrahim et al. 2013; Chattopadhyay 2014). On the other hand, direct citation remains a main indicator of the

significance of a research output rather than alternative metrics (Priem 2013; Shotton 2013; Ale Ebrahim et al. 2014).

However, because it eliminates the effect of the article’s life-span, which increases the opportunity for improving the

citation figures, the citations per year reflect the quality of the article even better than the total number of citations

(Chuang, Wang et al. 2011).

Bibliometric analysis has been widely used in various fields of study (Nikolic et al. 2011; Cao et al. 2013; Canas-

Guerrero et al. 2014; Zyoud et al. 2014). In agricultural economics, the bibliometric analysis has been used recently in

various publications - for instance, Determinants of citations to the Agricultural and Applied Economics Association

Journals (Hilmer and Lusk 2009), FAO studies of fishermen in 1995 (Parker et al. 2010) - evaluate the performance of

journals and publications of the Western Agricultural Economics Association (Perry 2012) to analyze the citations and

evaluate the performance of scholarships in South African studies in the field of agricultural economics (Kirsten 2011).

This study reviews the trend of top-cited publications in the field of agricultural risk and agricultural economics. Both

the citation and author keyword analyses in the Scientific Citation Index database were used to describe the global

trends of agricultural risk research during the period of 1980-2014. The study attempted to provide all-round insights

into the current state of agricultural risk research, including keyword and author analyses, publication trends,

distribution of the publication by country, high-performing institutions, top-cited papers and collaboration effects. The

results provide a better understanding of the trends in agricultural risk and agricultural economics research, and indicate

the direction for future studies.

METHOD

The articles on agricultural risk reported in this paper were obtained from the Thomson Reuters Web of Science

database which is based on the online version of the Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-Expanded) on July 26th,

2014, in the period 1980-2014. The frequencies of citations per year were collected for each of the top-cited articles.

For identifying agricultural risk articles we looked for the term “risk or uncertainty” in the topic and refined the results

to the Web of Science (WoS) category of: “AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS POLICY”; the result was refined to the

research area of economics and further refined to agricultural economics. The final results consisted of 908 documents.

The data was downloaded and analyzed with the spreadsheet analysis software Microsoft Excel 2013. The 100 top-cited

articles were selected in this manner; the papers with most citations per year, which was calculated as the division of the

total number of citations by the life-span of the article. The number of citations per year is more accurate and more

scientific than the total number of citations to identify the top-cited papers (Chuang et al. 2011; Ho 2014). An abstract

of these papers was reviewed by authors and five unrelated papers which applied risk as a general meaning rather than



202

as a scientific word in their topic were excluded and replaced with the next five. The average number of citations per

year of the listed publication is 2.21, with the maximum being 9.77 and the minimum 1.07. 95 of these papers are only

journal articles and another 5 are both proceeding and journal articles.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

3.1. Keyword analysis

In this section the author keywords are analyzed; these are given the title “DE” in the WoS downloaded database. The

author keywords can provide a research subject and detailed overview of the author about the article (Garfield 1990).

The keyword analysis provides information about the interests of the researchers and research emphases in the specific

topic (Chiu and Ho 2007).

Author keywords in 72 of the papers were mentioned in the database. A study of the whole papers of 28 of the

remaining articles led to the extraction of keywords in 7 publications and revealed that 21 papers did not originally have

author keywords; hence, this analysis is taken from 365 keywords in 79 articles. The terms which contained both

singular and plural forms were converted to the most frequently used word.

The term “risk aversion” was the most frequent keyword, repeated 17 times. The word “risk” was individually

replicated 16 times. “Expected utility” was mentioned 7 times, and the phrases “crop insurance”, “production risk” and

“risk preferences” were repeated 6 times. The word “risk” with and without the combination of the other words was

repeated 68 times. Table 1 demonstrates the frequency of the repeated author keywords and their percentage of use in

the top-cited papers.

A study of the author keywords revealed that risk preference - which can be defined by the terms “risk aversion”, “risk

preference”, “decreasing absolute risk aversion” and “risk attitude” - was mentioned in 37% of the articles.

3.2. Top Authors

This factor is extracted from a list of 200 different authors who have at least one paper in the top 100-ranking list of risk

publications in agricultural economics as a single or co-author. The top authors were calculated with three different

indexes: TP is the number of total top 100 publications on risk; TCP is the summary of the citations of all the

publications in the list; and TCY shows the summation of citations per year of the author’s publications in the list. Jean

Paul Chavas with 5 papers has the most TP and TCY, with 11.82 citations per year from all of his publications, but has

obtained the second rank in TCP. The best TCP is achieved by Hans Peter Binswanger, with 342 citations from only

one publication (ranked 25) in the list and a TCY of 9.77 (ranked 2). Richard E. Just, David J Pannell, and Salvatore Di

Falco have three highly cited publications. Additionally, the following 19 authors have two articles in the list:

Christopher B. Barrett, John Quiggin, Matthew Holt, Rulon D. Pope, Barry K. Goodwin, Gudbrand Lien, Barry T.

Coyle, Keith Coble, David Zilberman, Joost M.E. Pennings, Bruce Babcock, Ragnar Tveterås, Catherine Guirkinger,

Dermot Hayes, Mahmud Yesuf, SERGIO H. LENCE and Raushan Bokusheva. Table 2 shows the top 10 TCY and TCP

results and the authors with three articles.

3.3. Trend of top publications

Our study considers the publication data from 1980 until 2012. The maximum annual publishing top-cited paper during

this period is for 2006 and 2009 by 9 published papers. In the years 1982, 1984, 1986 and 1987 we do not have any top-

cited paper. The trend of publications per year seems to be increasing but in the last years of the study between 2010

and 2012 a steep decline is observed in the number of top-cited publications. Bibliometric studies show that the

publications have fewer citations in the first and second years of publication. This may prevent a high quality paper

from being nominated as a top-cited paper.

The number of publications per year and the linear trend line of the publications are demonstrated in Figure 1. Analysis

of the data from 1980 to 2009 by simple regression reveals the significant effect of time on the number of publications

per year with F statistic= 54.77, R 2 = (0.66) with a significant slope 0.23 with T statistic =of 7.4 and intercept of (- 458) the

equation is as below:

Top publication per year = 0.23 Year - 458.7

The equation shows that the number of top-cited publications increases by 23% annually.



203

3.4. Distribution of publications by country

The data on the countries of publication have been extracted from the addresses of the authors in the database. These

were classified and ranked in different categories; TP, which indicates the total publications of a country in terms of SP

(single country article) and CP (international collaboration article). FP indicates the first author-published article.

20 countries have at least one paper in the 100 top-cited papers. The US by TP of 64 publications has the highest

performance in the world. These countries also rank first in SP, CP and FP; Australia and England follow the US in TP

with 10 and 7 articles in the list, respectively.

3.5. Institutes with the highest performance in publishing

The data of the performance of the institutes were extracted from the affiliation of the authors of the 100 top-cited

articles. 88 different institutes contributed to publishing these 100 top-cited articles in agricultural risk; 55 of them have

only 1 article, 16 institutes have two top-cited articles and 16 institutes have more than 3 top-cited articles, as shown in

Table 4. The institutes have been ranked in terms of TP (total publication), CP (intra-institute collaborative publication),

SIP (single institute publication) and FAP (first author). Iowa State University with 10 top-cited publications had the

highest performance in TP, SP and FP but came second in collaboration CP. The University of California, Berkeley, is

in the second place in TP with 9 and the University of Maryland and the University Wisconsin are in joint 3rd position

with 7 top-cited publications.

3.6. Top journals on risk in agricultural economics

All of the 100 top-cited papers were published in only 10 journals; the “American Journal of Agricultural Economics”

has allocated more than half of the published papers with 51 published articles. The number of top-cited articles

published and some additional information about the journal which has been extracted from the Journal Citation Report

(JCR) are shown in Table 5; the additional data for two journals “Australian Journal of Agricultural Economics” and

“Review of Agricultural Economics” were not mentioned in JCR 2014.

3.7. The 10 top-cited papers

The 10 articles which gained the most total citations among the 100 top-cited list, which is categorized by citations per

year, are those which have more impact on the study of risk in agricultural economics. The article “Attitudes toward

Risk: Experimental Measurement in Rural India” by H.P. BINSWANGER has the most total citations within risk

studies in agricultural economics. The citations of this paper number more than 2.5 times those for the article ranked

second, “Joint Estimation of Risk Preference Structure and Technology Using Expo-Power Utility,” in total citations

and more than 1.89 times the citations per year achieved by the article ranked second “Econometric Estimation of

Producers’ Risk Attitudes” in citations per year. Table 6 shows the highest-cited articles on risk in agricultural

economics. TC is the total number of citations of the article and CY indicates the number of citations per year of the

paper’s life-span. The ranking of the paper in each category is also mentioned.

3.8. Collaboration in 100 top-cited papers

The trend of collaboration of authors, institutes and countries in the publications and also the relationships between

collaboration and the quality of papers, as indicated by the total citations (TC) and citations per year (CY), are

addressed in this section. Collaboration data for each year were calculated based on the average number of

collaborations in a specific year for authors, institutes and countries. 81% of the papers were produced by a single

country and 19% were produced internationally. Of the 100 top-cited articles 56 were written by a single institute and

43 articles were written in cooperation with more than two institutes. 22 articles have only one author but 78 of them

have at least one co-author. Table 7 shows the collaboration of authors, institutes and countries.

The trend of collaboration over the years fluctuates but is significantly increasing for both authors and institutes, as the

simple correlation calculated by SPSS 22 software shows in Table 8

Figure2 Shows trend of collaboration in publication in timespan 1980-2014

The correlation between the citations of the articles and the number of collaborators has been calculated. The analysis

shows that there is a significant negative correlation between the total citations and the number of authors, but the

relationship with the number of institutes and countries in collaboration is not significant; also, there is no significant

relationship between the citations per year and the number of collaborators in terms of authors and institutes, but the

correlation between the citations per year and the number of international collaborative countries is negatively



204

significant. Table 9 shows the Pearson coefficient and the significance of the relationship of TC and CY with the

number of collaborators.

In contrast with the results of previous studies, the findings of this study show that with increasing numbers of authors a

decrease in the total number of citations is observed. In this case, the year of publication could be the answer to the

dilemma, as this has strong correlations with the total number of citations and also a significant relationship with the

number of collaborators.

However, in the case of international collaboration there is not any significant relationship between the total number of

citations and the year of publishing, but there is a negative correlation between the number of citations per year and the

number of countries collaborating. This means that increased collaboration correlates with fewer citations per year.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates some characteristics of the 100 top-cited articles on the subject of risk in agricultural

economics, which were categorized by citation per year index. The top-ranking authors, articles, institutes, and

publishing journals were introduced and analyzed, and were ranked by different indexes. The distribution of

publications and the trend of publications over the years displayed an increasing trend of publication and revealed the

US as the highest performing country in terms of publishing articles on the subject of risk in agricultural economics. In

addition, the study of collaboration revealed the negative correlation between the total number of citations and the

number of authors, and also a negative correlation between the number of collaborating countries and the number of

citations per year. These characteristics in the publications on agricultural risk differ from the literature. For instance,

the citation analysis shows that papers with international co-authors are cited up to four times more often than those

without international co-authors (Ale Ebrahim, Salehi et al. 2013; Jones and Evans 2013). Krause (2009) Argued that

articles published through collaborations between several countries or several institutes are cited more. Authors who are

often involved in international collaboration received more citations (Aksnes 2003; Ale Ebrahim, Salehi et al. 2013).

REFERENCES

Aksnes, D.W. (2003). Characteristics of highly cited papers, Research Evaluation 12, 159-170.

Ale Ebrahim, N., Salehi, H., Embi, M.A., Danaee, M., Mohammadjafari, M., Zavvari, A., Shakiba, M. and Shahbazi-

Moghadam, M. (2014). Equality of Google Scholar with Web of Science Citations: Case of Malaysian

Engineering Highly Cited Papers, Modern Applied Science 8, 63-69.

Ale Ebrahim, N., Salehi, H., Embi, M.A., Habibi Tanha, F., Gholizadeh, H. and Motahar, S.M. (2014). Visibility and

Citation Impact, International Education Studies 7, 120-125.

Ale Ebrahim, N., Salehi, H., Embi, M.A., Habibi Tanha, F., Gholizadeh, H., Motahar, S.M. and Ordi, A. (2013).

Effective Strategies for Increasing Citation Frequency, International Education Studies 6, 93-99.

Bajwa, R., Yaldram, K. and Rafique, S. (2013). A scientometric assessment of research output in nanoscience and

nanotechnology: Pakistan perspective, Scientometrics 94, 333-342.

Brandt, J.S., Downing, A.C., Howard, D.L., Kofinas, J.D. and Chasen, S.T. (2010). Citation classics in obstetrics and

gynecology: the 100 most frequently cited journal articles in the last 50 years, American journal of obstetrics

and gynecology 203, 355. e351-355. e357.

Breustedt, G., Bokusheva, R. and Heidelbach, O. (2008). Evaluating the potential of index insurance schemes to reduce

crop yield risk in an arid region, Journal of Agricultural Economics 59, 312-328.

Canas-Guerrero, I., Mazarron, F.R., Calleja-Perucho, C. and Pou-Merina, A. (2014). Bibliometric analysis in the

international context of the "Construction & Building Technology" category from the Web of Science

database, Construction And Building Materials 53, 13-25.

Cao, Y., Zhou, S.X. and Wang, G.B. (2013). A bibliometric analysis of global laparoscopy research trends during 1997-

2011, Scientometrics 96, 717-730.

(ed.)^(eds.) (Year). Ethics of scientific publication: (Mal)-practices and Consequentialism, Proceedings of the Ethics in

Science, Technology and Engineering, 2014 IEEE International Symposium on; 23-24 May 2014 2014.

Chiu, W.-T. and Ho, Y.-S. (2007). Bibliometric analysis of tsunami research, Scientometrics 73, 3-17.



205

Chuang, K.-Y., Wang, M.-H. and Ho, Y.-S. (2011). High-impact papers presented in the subject category of water

resources in the essential science indicators database of the institute for scientific information, Scientometrics

87, 551-562.

Chuang, K.Y., Wang, M.H. and Ho, Y.S. (2011). High-impact papers presented in the subject category of water

resources in the essential science indicators database of the institute for scientific information, Scientometrics

87, 551-562.

Dillon, A., Mueller, V. and Salau, S. (2011). Migratory Responses to Agricultural Risk in Northern Nigeria, American

Journal of Agricultural Economics 93, 1048-1061.

Engler-Palma, A. and Hoag, D.L. (2007). Accounting for risk and stability in technology adoption, Canadian Journal of

Agricultural Economics-Revue Canadienne D Agroeconomie 55, 365-379.

Fooladi, M., Salehi, H., Yunus, M.M., Farhadi, M., Aghaei Chadegani, A., Farhadi, H. and Ale Ebrahim, N. (2013). Do

Criticisms Overcome the Praises of Journal Impact Factor?, Asian Social Science 9, 176-182.

Gambelli, D., Solfanelli, F. and Zanoli, R. (2014). Feasibility of risk-based inspections in organic farming: results from

a probabilistic model, Agricultural Economics 45, 267-277.

Garfield, E. (1990). KEYWORDS PLUS-ISI'S BREAKTHROUGH RETRIEVAL METHOD. 1. EXPANDING YOUR

SEARCHING POWER ON CURRENT-CONTENTS ON DISKETTE, Current Contents 32, 5-9.

Gedeon, J., Shamlaye, C., Myers, G.J. and Bovet, P. (2013). Epidemiology and public health research productivity in

Africa, International journal of epidemiology 42, 913-913.

Hilmer, C.E. and Lusk, J.L. (2009). Determinants of citations to the agricultural and applied economics association

journals, Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy 31, 677-694.

Ho, Y.-S. (2012). Top-cited articles in chemical engineering in Science Citation Index Expanded: A bibliometric

analysis, Chinese Journal of Chemical Engineering 20, 478-488.

Ho, Y.S. (2014). Classic articles on social work field in Social Science Citation Index: a bibliometric analysis,

Scientometrics 98, 137-155.

Horowitz, J.K. and Carson, R.T. (1991). A CLASSIFICATION TREE FOR PREDICTING CONSUMER

PREFERENCES FOR RISK REDUCTION, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 73, 1416-1421.

Jones, K. and Evans, K. (2013). Good Practices for Improving Citations to your Published Work, University of BATH,

pp 2.

Kear, R. and Colbert-Lewis, D. (2011). Citation searching and bibliometric measures: Resources for ranking and

tracking, College & Research Libraries News 72, 470-474.

Kirsten, J.F. (2011). Agricultural economics scholarship in South Africa at the crossroads: Is it time for a national

institute of food, agricultural and resource economics?, Agrekon 50, 124-144.

Krause, K. (2009). Increasing your Article's Citation Rates, Open Access Week., (Serial online). Available from URL:

http://works.bepress.com/kate_krause/12/ [accessed 28 May 2013].

Nikolic, N., Bagliniere, J.L., Rigaud, C., Gardes, C., Masquilier, M.L. and Taverny, C. (2011). Bibliometric analysis of

diadromous fish research from 1970s to 2010: a case study of seven species, Scientometrics 88, 929-947.

Parker, J., Doulman, D. and Collins, J. (2010). Citation analysis for the 1995 FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible

Fisheries, Marine Policy 34, 139-144.

Perry, G.M. (2012). WAEA presidential address deciding where to publish: Some observations on journal impact factor

and article influence score, Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 37, 335-348.

Priem, J. (2013). Scholarship: Beyond the paper, Nature 495, 437-440.

Purcell, W.D. and Hudson, W.T. (2003). Risk sharing and compensation guides for managers and members of vertical

beef alliances, Review of Agricultural Economics 25, 44-65.

Serra, T., Zilberman, D. and Gil, J.M. (2008). Differential uncertainties and risk attitudes between conventional and

organic producers: the case of Spanish arable crop farmers, Agricultural Economics 39, 219-229.

Shotton, D. (2013). Publishing: Open citations, Nature 502, 295-297.

Tan, J., Fu, H.-Z. and Ho, Y.-S. (2014). A bibliometric analysis of research on proteomics in Science Citation Index

Expanded, Scientometrics 98, 1473-1490.

Yeager, E.A. (2011). Impact of risk on cost and revenue efficiencies.

Zyoud, S.H., Al-Jabi, S.W., Sweileh, W.M. and Awang, R. (2014). A bibliometric analysis of toxicology research

productivity in Middle Eastern Arab countries during a 10-year period (2003-2012), Health Research Policy

and Systems 12, 13.

http://works.bepress.com/kate_krause/12/



206

Author Key words frequency

risk 16

risk aversion 17

expected utility 7

risk preference 8

crop insurance; production risk; 6

Ethiopia; experimental economics 5

hedging; moral hazard; organic farming; risk attitudes;

stochastic dominance; technology adoption; uncertainty 3

agricultural production; agrienvironmental policy;

agrobiodiversity; cara utility; credit rationing; decreasing

absolute risk aversion; diversity; duality; endogenous risk; food

safety; food security; foot-and-mouth disease; insurance; just-

pope production function; land degradation; poverty;

production; q12; q18; reinsurance; risk management; risk

perceptions; risk rationing; systemic risk; technical efficiency;

wealth; yields

2

Table 1Author Keywords frequency

Author name TP(R) ATC(R) TCY(R)

Jean Paul Chavas 5(1) 228(2) 11.82(1)

Hans Peter Binswanger 1(25) 342(1) 9.77(2)

Atanu Saha 2(5) 175(3) 9.25(3)

Richard E. Just 3(2) 141(6) 9.00(4)

David J Pannell 3(2) 123(7) 7.96(5)

John M. Antle 2(5) 170(4) 7.61(6)

Christopher B. Barrett 2(5) 91(10) 7.32(7)

John Quiggin 2(5) 115(8) 7.08(8)

Matthew Holt 2(5) 157(5) 6.72(9)

Rulon D. Pope 2(5) 104(9) 6.07(10)

Table 2 Top Authors



207

Country TP TP-RANK SP SP-RANK CP CP-RANK FP FP-Rank

USA 64 1 50 1 14 1 57 1

Australia 10 2 7 2 3 4 9 2

England 7 3 2 5 5 2 6 3

Canada 6 4 3 4 3 4 5 4

Germany 6 6 4 3 2 6 4 5

Netherlands 6 4 2 5 4 3 3 6

France 3 7 2 5 1 9 3 6

Israel 3 7 2 5 1 9 3 6

Norway 3 7 2 5 1 9 2 9

Italy 3 7 1 10 2 6 1 11

Spain 2 11 1 10 1 9 2 9

Belgium 2 11 - - 2 6 - -

Japan 1 13 - - 1 9 1 11

MEXICO 1 13 1 10 - - 1 11

South Africa 1 13 1 10 - - 1 11

Sweden 1 13 1 10 - - 1 11

Taiwan 1 13 1 10 - - 1 11

Ethiopia 1 13 - - 1 9 - -

Finland 1 13 - - 1 9 - -

Greece 1 13 - - 1 9 - -

Peoples R China 1 13 - - 1 9 - -

Table 3 distribution of the publication by country



208

Table 4 performance of top institutes

Journal Name

100

-To

p

cite

d

To

tal C

ites

Imp

act

Fa

cto

r

5-Y

ear

imp

act

facto

r

Imm

ed

iacy

ind

ex

Artic

les

Cite

d h

alf-

life

American Journal Of Agricultural Economics 51 4680 1.36 1.69 0.38 112 >10.0

Agricultural Economics 14 1500 1.08 1.67 0.42 70 7.4

European Review Of Agricultural Economics 8 852 1.46 2.08 0.4 35 8.4

Australian Journal Of Agricultural And Resource

Economics

7 502 1.06 1.46 0.10 29 6.5

Canadian Journal Of Agricultural Economics-Revue

Canadienne D Agroeconomie

5 391 0.70 0.86 0.03 27 7.8

Journal Of Agricultural And Resource Economics 5 570 0.43 0.88 0 27 >10.0

Journal Of Agricultural Economics 5 925 0.97 1.69 0.31 41 8.7

Review Of Agricultural Economics 4 0.64 1.05 0.11 6.9

China Agricultural Economic Review 1 65 0.54 0.50 0.10 29

Institute TP Rank CP Rank SIP Rank FAP Rank

Iowa State Univ 10 1 4 2 6 1 8 1

Univ Calif Berkeley 9 2 6 1 3 3 6 2

Univ Maryland 7 3 3 5 4 2 5 3

Univ Wisconsin, Madison 7 3 4 2 3 3 3 4

Texas A&M Univ 5 5 3 5 2 6 3 4

Univ Wageningen & Res Ctr 5 5 3 5 2 6 3 4

Cornell Univ 4 7 2 9 2 6 3 4

Univ Illinois 4 7 4 2 - - 2 14

Bur Agr Econ 3 9 - - 3 3 3 4

Inra 3 9 1 21 2 6 3 4

Michigan State Univ 3 9 1 21 2 6 3 4

N Carolina State Univ 3 9 1 21 2 6 3 4

Oklahoma State Univ 3 9 2 9 1 15 2 14

Purdue Univ 3 9 1 21 2 6 3 4

Univ London Imperial Coll Sci

Technol & Med 3 9

3 5

- -

3 4

Univ Western Australia 3 9 2 9 1 15 2 14



209

Table 5 Top Journals in agricultural risk

Author

Title TC TCR C/Y CYR PY

Binswanger Attitudes Toward Risk - Experimental-Measurement

In Rural India

342 1 9.77 1 1980

Saha, A; Shumway,

Cr; Talpaz, H

Joint Estimation Of Risk Preference Structure And

Technology Using Expo-Power Utility

134 2 4.78 4 1987

Antle, Jm Econometric Estimation Of Producers Risk Attitudes 129 3 5.16 2 1990

Pope, Rd; Just, Re On Testing The Structure Of Risk Preferences In

Agricultural Supply Analysis

96 4 4.57 5 1994

Moon, W;

Balasubramanian, Sk

Public Attitudes Toward Agrobiotechnology: The

Mediating Role Of Risk Perceptions On The Impact Of

Trust, Awareness, And Outrage

81 5 3.37 20 1991

Mistiaen, Ja; Strand,

Ie

Location Choice Of Commercial Fishermen With

Heterogeneous Risk Preferences

79 6 3.59 17 1993

Knoeber, Cr;

Thurman, Wn

Dont Count Your Chickens - Risk And Risk Shifting In

The Broiler Industry

79 7 2.32 33 1981

Love, Ha; Buccola, St Joint Risk Preference-Technology Estimation With A

Primal System

73 8 4.05 11 1997

Saha, A Expo-Power Utility - A Flexible Form For Absolute

And Relative Risk-Aversion

67 9 4.46 6 2000

Barrett, CB; Moser,

CM; Mchugh, OV;

Barison, J

Better Technology, Better Plots, Or Better Farmers?

Identifying Changes In Productivity And Risk Among

Malagasy Rice Farmers

58 10 3.41 19 1998

Table 6 Top cited papers

collaborators authors institute Country

6 1

5 2 3

4 9 1

3 24 8 5

2 42 32 14

1 22 56 81

Table 7 Collaboration in 100 top cited papers

Author

Pearson Correlation .389**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 100

Institute

Pearson Correlation .332**


N 100

Country Pearson Correlation -.167



210


N 100

**. Significance at the 1%

Table 8 Correlations of Collaboration and Publishing year

Collaborator TC CY

Author

Pearson (r) -.235* -.029

Sig-(2-tailed) .018 .776

number 100 100

Institute

Pearson (r) -.132 .116

Sig-(2-tailed) .192 .250

Number 100 100

Country

Pearson (r) -.117 -.291**

Sig-(2-tailed) .245 .003

Number 100 100

** Significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)

* Significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed)

Table 9 Correlations Of collaboration with TC and CY

Figure 1 Trend of 100 Top Cited Publication

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012

Trend Of 100Top cited Publication



211

Figure 2 Trend of collaboration

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Trend Of collaboration

author institute country