Hit papers significantly outperform the citation benchmark for their cohort. A paper qualifies
if it has ≥500 total citations, achieves ≥1.5× the top-1% citation threshold for papers in the
same subfield and year (this is the minimum needed to enter the top 1%, not the average
within it), or reaches the top citation threshold in at least one of its specific research
topics.
The Role of Trustworthiness in Reducing Transaction Costs and Improving Performance: Empirical Evidence from the United States, Japan, and Korea
20031.0k citationsJeffrey H. Dyer, Wujin Chuprofile →
Peers — A (Enhanced Table)
Peers by citation overlap · career bar shows stage (early→late)
cites ·
hero ref
This map shows the geographic impact of Wujin Chu's research. It shows the number of citations coming from papers published by authors working in each country. You can also color the map by specialization and compare the number of citations received by Wujin Chu with the expected number of citations based on a country's size and research output (numbers larger than one mean the country cites Wujin Chu more than expected).
This network shows the impact of papers produced by Wujin Chu. Nodes represent research fields, and links connect fields that are likely to share authors. Colored nodes show fields that tend to cite the papers produced by Wujin Chu. The network helps show where Wujin Chu may publish in the future.
Co-authorship network of co-authors of Wujin Chu
This figure shows the co-authorship network connecting the top 25 collaborators of Wujin Chu.
A scholar is included among the top collaborators of Wujin Chu based on the total number of
citations received by their joint publications. Widths of edges
represent the number of papers authors have co-authored together.
Node borders
signify the number of papers an author published with Wujin Chu. Wujin Chu is excluded from
the visualization to improve readability, since they are connected to all nodes in the network.
Chu, Wujin, et al.. (2010). The Influence of Art Infusion Type on Product Evaluation - Functional Product vs. Hedonic Product -. Journal of Consumer Studies. 21(4). 43–69.4 indexed citations
9.
Chu, Wujin, et al.. (2009). The Effect of Number, Distribution, and Skewness of Peer Reviews on Hedonic and Utilitarian Consumption. Korean Journal of Marketing. 24(1). 109–144.1 indexed citations
10.
Chu, Wujin, et al.. (2008). How Post-purchase & Anticipated Regrets Shape a Consumer's Subsequent Decision Making - An Approach on Moderating Role of Decision Making Variables and The Trait of Transaction Experiences in Minimizing Regret Emotion -. Journal of Consumer Studies. 19(2). 215–246.3 indexed citations
Song, Mee Ryoung, et al.. (2002). The Effects of Use of Infomediary and Brand on On-line Consumer's Purchase Intention. Journal of Consumer Studies. 13(2). 9–208.
13.
MacDuffie, John Paul, Wujin Chu, Frits K. Pil, & Kentaro Nobeoka. (2002). Project Report to International Motor Vehicle Program (IMVP), M.I.T.International Assembly Plant Study. DSpace@MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology).1 indexed citations
14.
Chu, Wujin, Eitan Gerstner, & James D. Hess. (1998). Partial Refunds or Money-Back Guarantees ?. Seoul National University Open Repository (Seoul National University). 4.1 indexed citations
15.
Dyer, Jeffrey H. & Wujin Chu. (1997). The Economic Value of Trust in Supplier-Buyer Relationships. DSpace@MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology).
16.
Dyer, Jeffrey H. & Wujin Chu. (1996). The Determinants of Interfirm Trust: Evidence from Supplier Automaker Relationships in the U.S., Japan and Korea. DSpace@MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology).3 indexed citations
17.
Messinger, Paul R. & Wujin Chu. (1995). Product Proliferation and the Determination of Slotting and Renewal Allowances. Seoul National University Open Repository (Seoul National University). 1.9 indexed citations
Rankless uses publication and citation data sourced from OpenAlex, an open and comprehensive
bibliographic database. While OpenAlex provides broad and valuable coverage of the global
research landscape, it—like all bibliographic datasets—has inherent limitations. These include
incomplete records, variations in author disambiguation, differences in journal indexing, and
delays in data updates. As a result, some metrics and network relationships displayed in
Rankless may not fully capture the entirety of a scholar's output or impact.