address some limitations of our study is an author citation analysis based on the four

based on total citations versus citation per JRI article, as only 16 authors are in the top

50 based on both total citations and citations per article.

In conclusion, readers should note that the purpose of this study is not to advocate any

particular measure of research productivity or impact. Rather, we present some mea-

sures commonly used in practice, such as total citations and total publication counts,

some measures implied by faculty evaluation criteria, such as publication counts ad-

justed for coauthorship, and some measures that add a broader perspective and present

the multifaceted ways productivity and impact could be assessed. Our study shows that

the author rankings are sensitive to the measures used, and therefore, a more compre-

hensive evaluation of researchers should consider multiple indicators of productivity

and impact.

Lastly, a limitation of our study in relation to author research productivity is that many

authors in our study probably have published in other WOS-listed journals, and most

have probably published in other risk and insurance journals that are not WOS-listed.

However, even with this limitation in mind, it is unlikely that any scholar who specializes

in risk and insurance (not including actuarial science here) does not view the JRI as

among the top few outlets for their research. In short, as stated in the introduction, the

purpose of our study is not to identify the most influential risk and insurance scholars,

even if such an undertaking were possible. One potential avenue for future research to

address some limitations of our study is an author citation analysis based on the four

“elite” RMI journals—the JRI, JRU, IME, and Geneva Review.

14 In sum, we think our

study has provided a unique and insightful analysis of the le