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
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