Knowledge mapping of GMO/GMF research in social sphere

Figures & data

Figure 1. (a) Publishing each year (2000–2017)—1,045 and (b) Citation count each year (2000–2017)—15,764.

Table 1. Highest number of articles published in SSCI journal between the years 2000and 2017

#	Title of the Journal	Frequency	Impact Factor
1	Journal of Agricultural Environmental Ethics	54	1.18
2	Food Policy	39	2.04
3	Public Understanding of Science	31	1.90
4	Journal of Risk Research	29	1.02
5	Risk Analysis	28	2.22

Note: All recorded impact factors are for the year 2015

Figure 2. Reference cocitation analysis in GMO/GMF.

Table 2. Top 10 cocited articles in the knowledge domain of “GMO/GMF” between the years 2000 and 2017

#	Freq.	Author and Year	Title of the Article	Source (Journal)
1	51	(Costa-Font et al., 2008)	Consumer acceptance, valuation of and attitudes toward genetically modified food: Review and implications for food policy	Food Policy
2	42	(Lusk et al., 2004)	Effect of information about benefits of biotechnology on consumer acceptance of genetically modified food: evidence from experimental auctions in the United	European Review of Agricultural Economics
3	39	(Lusk, Jamal, Kurlander, Roucan, & Taulman, 2005)	A Meta-Analysis of Genetically Modified Food Valuation Studies	Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics
4	34	(Noussair & Ruffieux, 2004)	Do Consumers Really Refuse To Buy Genetically Modified Food?*	Economic Journal
5	31	(Noussair, Robin, & Ruffieux, 2002)	Do consumers not care about biotech foods or do they just not read the labels?	Economics Letters
6	29	(Gaskell et al., 2004)	GM Foods and the Misperception of Risk Perception	Risk Analysis
7	28	(Gaskell, Bauer, Durant, & Allum, 2000)	Worlds Apart? The Reception of Genetically Modified Foods in Europe and the U.S.	Science
8	26	(Chen and Li 2007)	The consumer’s attitude toward genetically modified foods in Taiwan	Food Quality and Preference
9	26	(Bredahl, 2001)	Determinants of Consumer Attitudes and Purchase Intentions With Regard to Genetically Modified Foods—Results of a Cross-National Survey	Journal of Consumer Policy
10	25	(Huffman et al., 2007)	The effects of prior beliefs and learning on consumers ’ acceptance of genetically modified foods	Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization

Table 3. Intellectual turning points in the knowledge domain of “GMO/GMF” between the years 2000 and 2017

Centrality (Between-ness)	Frequency	Author and Year
0.65	21	(Scholderer & Frewer, 2003)
0.55	06	(Frewer et al., 1998)
0.36	18	(Christoph, Bruhn, & Roosen, 2008)
0.36	15	(Hansen et al., 2003)
0.31	07	(Levidow, Carr, & Wield, 2000)

Table 4. Top 5 strongest citation burst in the knowledge domain of GMO/GMF during the years 2000–2017

Sr#	Author and Year	Strength	Begin	End
1	(Vilella-Vila & Costa-Font, 2008)	14.7744	2010	2017
2	(Gaskell et al., 2000)	9.5523	2002	2007
3	(Rousu, Shogren, Tegene, & Huffman, 2007)	8.5789	2010	2015
4	(Siegrist, 2000)	7.7835	2004	2008
5	(Frewer, Howard, & Shepherd, 1997)	7.2004	2002	2005

Table 5. Top 10 keyword coword analysis in terms of frequency, centrality, and burst

Keyword	Freq.	Keyword	Cent.	Keyword	Burst
Biotechnology	259	Food	0.12	Risk	6.44
Attitude	150	Science	0.11	Health	6.17
Risk	139	Biotechnology	0.10	Genetically Modified Crops	5.93
Information	116	Benefits	0.09	Biotechnology	5.91
Perception	115	Labeling	0.09	Uncertainty	5.71

Figure 3. Keyword coword analysis over the timeline.

Table 6. Most actively cited reference and the top citing articles in each cluster

Cluster ID	Label	Size	Silhouette	Mean (Mean)	Author (Year) Cited Reference	Author (Year) Title Citing Reference
0	Public Opinion	26	0.877	2004	(Vilella-Vila & Costa-Font, 2008) (Frewer, Scholderer, & Bredahl, 2003)	(Connor & Siegrist, 2010) (H De Steur et al., 2010)
1	GM Food	25	0.933	2001	(Gaskell et al., 2004) (Siegrist, 2000)	(Frewer et al., 2004) (Spence & Townsend, 2006)
2	Transgenic Plant	21	0.884	1997	(Gaskell, Bauer, et al., 2000) (Gaskell, Allum, et al., 2000)	(Myhr & Traavik, 2002) (Pouteau, 2000)
3	Folic Acid Supplementation	20	0.929	2006	(Lusk et al., 2004) (Noussair & Ruffieux, 2004)	(Steur, Feng, Xiaoping, & Gellynck, 2013) (Kaye-Blake & Saunders, 2008)
4	Food Production	19	0.931	2008	(Siegrist, Cousin, Kastenholz, & Wiek, 2007) (Frewer, Van Der, & Reinders, 2013)	(Lusk et al., 2014) (Frewer et al., 2014)
5	Social Representation	18	0.912	2007	(Christoph et al., 2008) (Qaim, 2009)	(Bett, Okuro, & Hugo, 2010) (Sorgo & Dolinsek, 2010)
6	Consumer Acceptance	16	0.923	2001	(Bredahl, 2001) (Burton, Rigby, Young, & James, 2001)	(Grimsrud, Mccluskey, Loureiro, & Wahl, 2004) (Mucci, Hough, & Ziliani, 2004)
7	Food Safety	15	0.875	1998	(Lusk et al., 2005) (Lusk, 2003)	(Subrahmanyan & Cheng, 2000) (Burton et al., 2001)

Figure 4. Cluster analysis of GMO/GMF studies during the years 2000–2017.

Table 7. Top 5 most productive institutions in the knowledge area of GMO/GMF

#	Institute Name	Location	Specialized Area	Since	Frequency
1	Wageningen University	Netherland	Healthy food and living environment	2007	33
2	National Institute for Agricultural Research	France	Agriculture, food, and the environment	2000	13
3	Ghent University	Belgium	Medicine, plant science, and microbiology	2011	12
4	Iowa State University	United States	Bio-economy, agribusiness, and innovation	2003	11
5	University of Nottingham	United Kingdom	Sustainable societies, health and wellbeing, and transformative technologies	2004	9

Figure 5. Institutions cocitation analysis of GMO/GMF.

Table 8. Top 10 most-observed country in terms of frequency, centrality, and burst

Country	Freq.	Country	Centrality	Country	Burst
USA	331	USA	0.44	UNITED KINGDOM	5.72
UNITED KINGDOM	117	UNITED KINGDOM	0.15	BELGIUM	4.67
CANADA	80	CANADA	0.1	PEOPLES R CHINA	4.38
NETHERLANDS	75	SPAIN	0.1	NEW ZEALAND	4.27
GERMANY	58	NETHERLANDS	0.09	MALAYSIA	4.2
FRANCE	49	GERMANY	0.09	FRANCE	4.12
AUSTRALIA	49	DENMARK	0.09	JAPAN	3.56
PEOPLES R CHINA	35	TURKEY	0.07	SOUTH KOREA	2.96
ITALY	32	FRANCE	0.05	NORWAY	2.95
SPAIN	31	ITALY	0.04

Table 9. Dominating subject categories

Category	Frequency	Starting Year	Burst	Centrality
Business and economics	288	2000	-	0.06
Agriculture	252	2000	-	0.22
Economics	245	2000	-	-
Agricultural economics	166	2001	-	0.17
Environmental science	150	2000	-	-

Figure 7. Research categories in the intellectual structure of GMO/GMF.

Table 10. Analysis of cocited journals on the basis of frequency, burst and centrality

#	Journal Title	Year	Research Area	Freq.	IF
By Citation
1	Science (AAAS)	2000	Multidisciplinary	316	34.66
2	Risk Analysis	2000	Society for Risk analysis	306	2.22
3	Food Policy	2004	Policies for food sector in different economies	242	2.04
4	American Journal of Agricultural Economy	2000	Global economics of food, agriculture, rural and community development	240	1.44
5	Nature	2000	Multidisciplinary	207	38.13
By Centrality
1	American Behavioral Scientist	2000	Contemporary issues n social and behavioral science	.56	1.90
2	Risk Analysis	2000	Society for Risk analysis	.51	2.22
4	Food and Chemical Toxicology	2002	Study toxic effect of food, drugs and chemicals in live-bodies.	.39	3.58
4	American Economic Review	2000	Applied economics, and empirical microeconomic issues	.38	3.83
5	Agriculture and Human Values	2000	Addressing human value, food and agricultural issues in society	.38	2.22
By Bursts
1	Plos ONE (Public Library of Science)	2014	Applications and research about science and medicine	14.42	3.08
2	The Economic Journal	2001	Mathematical economic theories and microeconomic factors	12.68	2.37
3	Biotechnology	1996	Covering all aspects of bio-technology	11.53	3.78
4	Land economics	2001	In the relevance of public policies, focuses natural and environmental resources	10.88	1.44
5	New Biotechnology	2014	Science and biotechnology over the spectrum of politics, business and economics	10.16	3.20

Abbreviations: Freq. = Frequency, Cent. = Centrality, IF = Impact factor (Note: all recorded Impact factors are for the year 2015)

Figure 8. Author cocitation network analysis of GMO/GMF.

Figure 6. World’s dispersion of GMO/GMF literature.

Table 11. Authors cocitation analysis

Sr#	Frequency	Author	Research Content	Relevant Publications	Associated Institute and Country
1	234	George Gaskell	Beliefs and attitude, Society and science, social implications of bio-technology	58	London School of Economics, United Kingdom
2	225	Lynn Frewer	Food and society, Food safety and consumer behavior.	225	Newcastle University, United kingdom
3	174	Jayson Lusk	Agricultural economics	167	Oklahoma State University, United States
4	139	Michael Siegrist	Consumer behavior	59 (187)	ETH Zürich, Switzerland
5	137	Paul Slovic	Risk perception, Decision making, Behavioral and communication studies	39 (204)	University of Oregon, United States

Costa-Font, M., Gil, J. M., & Bruce Traill, W. (2008). Consumer acceptance, valuation of and attitudes towards genetically modified food: Review and implications for food policy. Food Policy, 33(33), 99–111. doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2007.07.002

 Google Scholar

Lusk, J. L., House, L. O., Jaeger, S. R., Moore, M., Morrow, J. L., & Bruce Traill, W. (2004). Effect of information about benefits of biotechnology on consumer acceptance of genetically modified food: Evidence from experimental auctions in the United States, England, and France. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 31(2), 179–204. doi:10.1093/erae/31.2.179

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Lusk, J. L., Jamal, M., Kurlander, L., Roucan, M., & Taulman, L. (2005). A meta-analysis of genetically modified food valuation studies. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 30, 1.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Noussair, C., & Ruffieux, B. (2004). DO CONSUMERS REALLY REFUSE TO BUY GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOOD ?*. The Economic Journal, 114, 102–120. doi:10.1046/j.0013-0133.2003.00179.x

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Noussair, C., Robin, S., & Ruffieux, B. (2002). Do consumers not care about biotech foods or do they just not read the labels? Economics Letters, 75, 47–53. doi:10.1016/S0165-1765(01)00594-8

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Gaskell, G., Allum, N., Wagner, W., Kronberger, N., Torgersen, H., Hampel, J., & Bardes, J. (2004). GM foods and the misperception of risk perception. Risk Analysis, 24(1), 185–194. doi:10.1111/risk.2004.24.issue-1

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Gaskell, G., Bauer, M. W., Durant, J., & Allum, N. C. (2000). Worlds apart? The reception of genetically modified foods in Europe and the U. S . Science, 285(JULY), 1999.

 Google Scholar

Chen, M.-F., & Hsiao-Lan, L. (2007). The consumer ’ s attitude toward genetically modified foods in Taiwan. Food Quality and Preference, 18(40), 662–674. doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2006.10.002

 Google Scholar

Bredahl, L. (2001). Determinants of consumer attitudes and purchase intentions with regard to genetically modified foods – Results of a cross-national survey. Journal of Consumer Policy, 24, 23–61. doi:10.1023/A:1010950406128

 Google Scholar

Huffman, W. E., Rousu, M., Shogren, J. F., & Tegene, A. (2007). The effects of prior beliefs and learning on consumers ’ acceptance of genetically modified foods. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 63, 193–206. doi:10.1016/j.jebo.2005.04.019

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Scholderer, J., & Frewer, L. J. (2003). The biotechnology communication paradox: Experimental evidence and the need for a new strategy. Journal of Consumer Policy, 26, 125–157. doi:10.1023/A:1023695519981

 Google Scholar

Frewer, L. J., Howard, C., & Shepherd, R. (1998). The influence of initial attitudes on responses to communication about genetic engineering in food production. Agriculture and Human Values, 15, 15–30. doi:10.1023/A:1007465730039

 Google Scholar

Christoph, I. B., Bruhn, M., & Roosen, J. (2008). Knowledge, attitudes towards and acceptability of genetic modification in Germany. Appetite, 51, 58–68. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2007.12.001

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Hansen, J., Holm, L., Frewer, L., Robinson, P., & Peter, S. (2003). Beyond the knowledge deficit: Recent research into lay and expert attitudes to food risks. Appetite, 41, 111–121. doi:10.1016/S0195-6663(03)00079-5

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Levidow, L. E. S., Carr, S., & Wield, D. (2000). Genetically modified crops in the European Union : Regulatory conflicts as precautionary opportunities. Journal of Risk Research, 3(3), 189–208. doi:10.1080/13669870050043062

 Google Scholar

Vilella-Vila, M., & Costa-Font, J. (2008). Press media reporting effects on risk perceptions and attitudes towards Genetically Modified (GM) food. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 37(37), 2095–2106. doi:10.1016/j.socec.2008.04.006

 Google Scholar

Rousu, M. A. T. T. H. E. W., Shogren, J. A. S. O. N. F., Tegene, A. B. E. B. A. Y. E. H. U., & Huffman, W. A. L. L. A. C. E. E. (2007). Effects and value of verifiable information in a controversial market: Evidence from lab auctions of genetically modified food. Economic Inquiry, 45(3), 409–432. doi:10.1111/j.1465-7295.2007.00017.x

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Siegrist, M. (2000). The influence of trust and perceptions of risks and benefits on the acceptance of gene technology. Risk Analysis, 20, 2. doi:10.1111/0272-4332.202020

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Frewer, L. J., Howard, C., & Shepherd, R. (1997). Public concerns in the United Kingdom about general and specific applications of genetic engineering: Risk, benefit, and ethics. Science, Technology & Human Values, 22(1), 98–124. doi:10.1177/016224399702200105

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Frewer, L. J., Scholderer, J., & Bredahl, L. (2003). Communicating about the risks and benefits of genetically modified foods: The mediating role of trust. Risk Analysis, 23, 6.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Connor, M., & Siegrist, M. (2010). Factors influencing people ’ s acceptance of gene technology: The role of knowledge, health expectations, naturalness, and social trust. Science Communication, 32(4), 514–538. doi:10.1177/1075547009358919

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Steur, H. D., Gellynck, X., Storozhenko, S., Liqun, G., Lambert, W., Van Der Straeten, D., & Viaene, J. (2010). Willingness-to-accept and purchase genetically modified rice with high folate content in Shanxi Province, China. Appetite Journal, 54, 118–125. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2009.09.017

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Frewer, L., Lassen, J., Kettlitz, B., Scholderer, J., Beekman, V., & Berdal, K. G. (2004). Societal aspects of genetically modified foods. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 42, 1181–1193. doi:10.1016/j.fct.2004.02.002

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Spence, A., & Townsend, E. (2006). Examining consumer behavior toward genetically Modified (GM) food in Britain. Risk Analysis, 26(3), 657–670. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2006.00777.x

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Gaskell, G., Allum, N., Bauer, M., Durant, J., Allansdottir, A., & Bonfadelli, H., … Wagner, W. (2000). Biotechnology and the European public. Nature Biotechnology, 18(September).

 Google Scholar

Myhr, A. I., & Traavik, T. (2002). The precautionary principle: Scientific uncertainty and omitted research in the context of GMO use and release. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 15, 73–86. doi:10.1023/A:1013814108502

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Pouteau, S. (2000). Beyond substantial equivalence: Ethical equivalence. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 13, 273–291. doi:10.1023/A:1009546031890

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Steur, H. D., Feng, S., Xiaoping, S., & Gellynck, X. (2013). Consumer preferences for micronutrient strategies in China. A comparison between folic acid supplementation and folate biofortification. Public Health Nutrition, 17(6), 1410–1420. doi:10.1017/S1368980013000682

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kaye-Blake, W. H., & Saunders, C. M. (2008). And producer returns: The impacts of productivity, preferences, and technology uptake. Review of Agricultural Economics, 30(4), 692–710. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9353.2008.00441.x

 Google Scholar

Siegrist, M., Cousin, M.-E., Kastenholz, H., & Wiek, A. (2007). Public acceptance of nanotechnology foods and food packaging: The influence of affect and trust. Appetite, 49, 459–466. doi:10.1016/j.appet.2007.03.002

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Frewer, L. J., Van Der, I. A., & Reinders, M. J. (2013). Public perceptions of agri-food applications of genetic modification E A systematic review and meta-analysis. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 30(2), 142–152. Elsevier Ltd. doi:10.1016/j.tifs.2013.01.003

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Lusk, J. L., Roosen, J., & Bieberstein, A. (2014). Consumer acceptance of new food technologies: Causes and roots of controversies. Annual Review of Resource Economics, 6, 381–405. doi:10.1146/annurev-resource-100913-012735

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Frewer, L. J., Gupta, N., Giles, E. L., & Coles, D. (2014). Consumer attitudes towards nanotechnologies applied to food production. Trends in Food Science & Technology. Elsevier Ltd. doi: 10.1016/j.tifs.2014.06.005.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Qaim, M. (2009). The economics of genetically modified crops. Annual Review of Resource Economics, 1, 665–693. doi:10.1146/annurev.resource.050708.144203

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Bett, C., Okuro, J., & Hugo, D. G. (2010). Perspectives of gatekeepers in the Kenyan food industry towards genetically modified food. Food Policy, 35(4), 332–340. Elsevier Ltd. doi:doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2010.01.003.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Sorgo, A., & Dolinsek, J. A. (2010). Knowledge of, attitudes toward, and acceptance of genetically modified organisms among prospective teachers of biology, home economics, and grade school in Slovenia. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 38(3), 141–150. doi:10.1002/bmb.20377

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Burton, M., Rigby, D., Young, T., & James, S. (2001). Consumer attitudes to genetically modified organisms in food in the UK. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 28(4), 479–498. doi:10.1093/erae/28.4.479

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Grimsrud, K. M., Mccluskey, J. J., Loureiro, M. L., & Wahl, T. I. (2004). Consumer attitudes to genetically modified food in Norway. Journal of Agricultural Economics ? 55(1), 75–90. doi:10.1111/j.1477-9552.2004.tb00080.x

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Mucci, A., Hough, G., & Ziliani, C. (2004). Factors that influence purchase intent and perceptions of genetically modified foods among argentine consumers. Food Quality and Preference, 15(15), 559–567. doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2004.02.004

 Google Scholar

Lusk, J. L. (2003). Effects of cheap talk on consumer willingness - to -pay for golden rice. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 85(November), 840–856. doi:10.1111/1467-8276.00492

 Google Scholar

Subrahmanyan, S., & Cheng, P. S. I. M. (2000). Perceptions and attitudes of Singaporeans toward genetically modified food. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 34(2), 269–290. doi:10.1111/j.1745-6606.2000.tb00094.x

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar