Trend of 100 Top-cited Articles on Agricultural Risk
-
Upload
nader-ale-ebrahim -
Category
Food
-
view
229 -
download
1
Transcript of 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,
Email: [email protected]
Nader Ale Ebrahim3
3Research Support Unit, Centre of Research Services,
Institute of Research Management and Monitoring (IPPP), University of Malaya, Malaysia:
Email: [email protected]
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
Proceeding – 2nd Kuala Lumpur International Agriculture, Forestry and Plantation
February 20 – 21, 2016. Hotel Putra, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. ISBN 978-967-13952-0-2
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
Proceeding – 2nd Kuala Lumpur International Agriculture, Forestry and Plantation
February 20 – 21, 2016. Hotel Putra, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. ISBN 978-967-13952-0-2
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.
Proceeding – 2nd Kuala Lumpur International Agriculture, Forestry and Plantation
February 20 – 21, 2016. Hotel Putra, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. ISBN 978-967-13952-0-2
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
Proceeding – 2nd Kuala Lumpur International Agriculture, Forestry and Plantation
February 20 – 21, 2016. Hotel Putra, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. ISBN 978-967-13952-0-2
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.
Proceeding – 2nd Kuala Lumpur International Agriculture, Forestry and Plantation
February 20 – 21, 2016. Hotel Putra, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. ISBN 978-967-13952-0-2
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.
Proceeding – 2nd Kuala Lumpur International Agriculture, Forestry and Plantation
February 20 – 21, 2016. Hotel Putra, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. ISBN 978-967-13952-0-2
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
Proceeding – 2nd Kuala Lumpur International Agriculture, Forestry and Plantation
February 20 – 21, 2016. Hotel Putra, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. ISBN 978-967-13952-0-2
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
Proceeding – 2nd Kuala Lumpur International Agriculture, Forestry and Plantation
February 20 – 21, 2016. Hotel Putra, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. ISBN 978-967-13952-0-2
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
Proceeding – 2nd Kuala Lumpur International Agriculture, Forestry and Plantation
February 20 – 21, 2016. Hotel Putra, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. ISBN 978-967-13952-0-2
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**
Sig. (2-tailed) .001
N 100
Country Pearson Correlation -.167
Proceeding – 2nd Kuala Lumpur International Agriculture, Forestry and Plantation
February 20 – 21, 2016. Hotel Putra, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. ISBN 978-967-13952-0-2
210
Sig. (2-tailed) .096
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
Proceeding – 2nd Kuala Lumpur International Agriculture, Forestry and Plantation
February 20 – 21, 2016. Hotel Putra, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. ISBN 978-967-13952-0-2
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