← Back to paper list

Citation Analysis

Contrasting the optimal resource allocation to cybersecurity and cyber insurance using prospect theory versus expected utility theory.
Chaitanya Joshi, Jinming Yang, Sergeja Slapnicar, Ryan K L Ko
https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.18838
121
Citation mentions
50
Cited references
7
Sections
10,778
Words (approx)

References by Citation Intensity

Ordered by composite index (descending). Higher values indicate more intensive citation.

# Reference Year Mentions Breadth Sec. Wtd Share Composite Main %
1 Marotta, Angelica and Martinelli, Fabio and Nanni,... 2017 13 4 13.0 0.107 1.000 100%
2 Justin Sydnor 2010 6 4 11.0 0.050 1.000 100%
3 In Do Hwang 2021 6 4 11.0 0.050 1.000 100%
4 Tversky, Amos and Kahneman, Daniel 1992 8 6 15.0 0.066 1.000 100%
5 Bruhin, Adrian and Fehr-Duda, Helga and Epper, Tho... 2010 5 4 10.0 0.041 1.000 100%
6 Howard Kunreuther and Mark Pauly 2004 4 3 6.0 0.033 0.928 100%
7 Guido de Smidt and Wouter Botzen 2018 4 4 7.0 0.033 0.928 100%
8 Kahneman, Daniel and Tversky, Amos 1979 4 4 7.0 0.033 0.928 100%
9 Barseghyan, Levon and Molinari, Francesca and O'Do... 2013 3 3 5.0 0.025 0.843 100%
10 Ganbayar Uuganbayar and Artsiom Yautsiukhin and Fa... 2021 4 2 3.5 0.033 0.811 100%
11 Francisco Pitthan and Kristof De Witte 2021 4 2 5.0 0.033 0.811 100%
12 Back, Kerry E. 2017 4 2 8.0 0.033 0.811 100%
13 Schmidt, Ulrich 2016 3 2 4.0 0.025 0.737 100%
14 Rios Insua, David and Couce-Vieira, Aitor and Rubi... 2021 2 2 1.5 0.017 0.644 100%
15 Richard Gonzalez and George Wu 1999 2 2 4.0 0.017 0.644 100%
16 Schmidt, Ulrich and Starmer, Chris and Sugden, Rob... 2008 2 2 4.0 0.017 0.644 100%
17 Sullivan, J. and Nurse, J. R. 2021 3 1 3.0 0.025 0.585 100%
18 Eling, Martin and Schnell, W. 2016 3 1 3.0 0.025 0.585 100%
19 Shetty, S. and McShane, M. and Zhang, L. and Kesan... 2018 2 1 2.0 0.017 0.511 100%
20 Öğüt, Hulisi and Raghunathan, Srinivasan and Menon... 2011 2 1 2.0 0.017 0.511 100%
21 Arunabha Mukhopadhyay and Samir Chatterjee and Deb... 2013 2 1 2.0 0.017 0.511 100%
22 Biener, C. and Eling, M. and Wirfs, J. H. 2015 2 1 2.0 0.017 0.511 100%
23 Hubbard, D.W. and Seiersen, R 2023 2 1 2.0 0.017 0.511 100%
24 Gareth Mott and Sarah Turner and Jason R.C. Nurse ... 2023 2 1 2.0 0.017 0.511 100%
25 Öğüt, Hulisi and Menon, Nirup and Raghunathan, Sri... 2005 2 1 2.0 0.017 0.511 100%
26 Romanosky, Sasha 2016 2 1 2.0 0.017 0.511 100%
27 Barberis, Nicholas C. 2013 2 1 2.0 0.017 0.511 100%
28 WEF 2024 1 1 1.0 0.008 0.406 100%
29 Gordon, Lawrence A. and Loeb, Martin P. and Sohail... 2003 1 1 1.0 0.008 0.406 100%
30 Boehm, J. and Curcio, N. and Merrath, P. and Shent... 2019 1 1 1.0 0.008 0.406 100%
31 Lauren Miller 2019 1 1 1.0 0.008 0.406 100%
32 Yurcik, W. and Doss, D. 2002 1 1 1.0 0.008 0.406 100%
33 Eling, Martin and Wirfs, J. 2019 1 1 1.0 0.008 0.406 100%
34 Freund, J. and Jones, J. 2014 1 1 1.0 0.008 0.406 100%
35 Santiago Pollmeier and Ivano Bongiovanni and Serge... 2023 1 1 1.0 0.008 0.406 100%
36 Cassandra R. Cole and Stephen G. Fier 2021 1 1 1.0 0.008 0.406 100%
37 Mark J. Browne and Christian Knoller and Andreas R... 2015 1 1 1.0 0.008 0.406 100%
38 Eling, Martin and McShane, Michael and Nguyen, Tru... 2021 1 1 1.0 0.008 0.406 100%
39 Von Neumann, J. and Morgenstern, O. 1947 1 1 2.0 0.008 0.406 100%
40 Banks, David L and Rios, Jesus and R\'\i 2015 1 1 2.0 0.008 0.406 100%
41 Ejaz, Muhammad and Joe, Stephen and Joshi, Chaitan... (self) 2021 1 1 2.0 0.008 0.406 100%
42 Ejaz, Muhammad and Joshi, Chaitanya and Joe, Steph... (self) 2021 1 1 2.0 0.008 0.406 100%
43 Etner, Johanna and Jeleva, Meglena and Tallon, Jea... 2012 1 1 2.0 0.008 0.406 100%
44 Gilboa, Itzhak and Marinacci, Massimo 2013 1 1 2.0 0.008 0.406 100%
45 Huseyin Cavusoglu, Srinivasan Raghunathan and Wei ... 2008 1 1 0.5 0.008 0.406 100%
46 Rao, Nageswara S. V. and Poole, Stephen W. and Ma,... 2016 1 1 0.5 0.008 0.406 100%
47 Chase, Jonathan and Niyato, Dusit and Wang, Ping a... 2019 1 1 0.5 0.008 0.406 100%
48 Shinichi Kamiya and Jun-Koo Kang and Jungmin Kim a... 2021 1 1 2.0 0.008 0.406 100%
49 Walton, Stephanie and Wheeler, Patrick R. and Zhan... 2021 1 1 2.0 0.008 0.406 100%
50 Muhammad Ejaz and Chaitanya Joshi and Stephen Joe (self) 2022 1 1 2.0 0.008 0.406 100%
Measures: Mentions = total in-text citations; Breadth = distinct sections; Sec. Wtd = section-weighted count (body ×2, lit review/appendix ×0.5); Share = mentions / total citations in paper; Composite = geometric mean of normalised count, breadth, and main-text ratio; Main % = fraction of mentions in main text (excl. appendix). (self) = self-citation.

Citation intensity data generated from LaTeX source analysis.