No abstract

No abstract

The bibliographies of 17 "risk" journals were evaluated to determine the relative influence of these "risk" journals on risk, insurance, and actuarial research published during the years 2001 through 2005. Tables are provided that show the frequency with which each of these journals cites itself and the other sample journals. The journals are ranked, within two groups (risk and insurance group and actuarial group), based on their total influence (total citations including and excluding self-citations) and their per article influence (per article citations including and excluding self-citations). Finally, the most frequently cited articles from each "risk" journal are reported. Copyright (c) The Journal of Risk and Insurance, 2009.

This research provides an assessment of the utility and quality of risk management and insurance (RMI)-related journals using professorial expert opinion. Although Social Science Citation Index (SSCI)-produced citation counts and article impact factors are widely available and commonly used methods of journal comparison, they are limited to very few generally premier journals in any field, including RMI, leaving stakeholders with substantial gaps when benchmarking journal factors. We bridge this gap by comparing RMI faculty opinion of quality to SSCI assessments for 13 journals with results indicating general consistency across these measures. The expert opinion approach is extended to assess quality across a sample of 30 RMI-related publications, along with assigning journal categories delineated based on reported academic utility, contributing to RMI boundary definitions. Posthoc analysis indicates only modest influences for some individual, institutional, and journal-related factors on professorial perceptions, evidence that expert opinions are reliable measures of RMI journal utility and quality. Additionally, only modest differences are found in journal quality assessments by academics relative to the teaching versus research institutional mission of their employers, as well as across perceived individual teaching versus research role expectations. Thus, the expert opinion approach to evaluating utility and quality, coupled with regression and subsample analysis, aids RMI academics and other stakeholders in journal assessment and boundary definition issues. These contributions to the advancement of journal assessment methodologies in general may also prove useful across academic disciplines.

Insurance consumers in states that have adopted comparative negligence pay more for automobile liability insurance than do consumers in states that retain contributory negligence. Through the use of a transformed generalized least squares regression model, allowance is made for: no-fault, population density, state-specific price-level, and automobile safety/fatality differences. States with pure comparative have much higher costs than do states with modified comparative negligence; states with modified comparative have higher costs than those with contributory negligence. The influence of alternative liability rules on the cost of insurance is of public concern. In recent years many states have changed from contributory negligence to either pure or modified comparative negligence. This article examines the cost of automobile insurance under three liability rules. The authors conclude that states with either type of comparative negligence have higher automobile insurance costs. Article: Negligence Standards Contributory negligence provides that in order to be awarded damages, plaintiffs must be free of fault, however slight, in causing those damages. As recently as 1970, 38 states had contributory negligence rules. Only five states retain a contributory negligence tandard. Table 1 lists the states, their changes, and the years those changes were effective.