Forty Years of <i>Risk Analysis</i>: A Scientometric Overview
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Risk Analysis was first published in 1981, established with a vision to provide a platform for inquiry into fundamental risk-related concepts and theories, and to disseminate new knowledge about methods and approaches for identifying, analyzing, evaluating, managing, and communicating risk. The journal has also contributed significantly to a scientific understanding of specific risks related to human health and safety, engineering, ecological, and social systems. Published on behalf of the Society for Risk Analysis, the journal has become a leading platform over its 40-year history. Complementing recent celebratory overviews and perspectives on the evolution, achievements, and future challenges for Risk Analysis, this article presents a scientometric overview of the journal between 1981 and 2020. The study presents high-level insights in the journal publication trends and structure and trends in the leading countries/regions, institutions, and authors, in relation to their respective collaboration networks. Furthermore, the structure and evolution of research focus issues is analyzed, and highly cited publications are identified. The findings are primarily intended to provide high-level insights, which may be useful for early career academics and risk practitioners to understand the structure and development of the research domain, and its main contributors and topics, and for experienced researchers to reflect on the achievements and future developments.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.092 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".