A Survey of Islamic Finance Research - Influences and Influencers

Pacific-Basin Finance Journal xxx (xxxx) xxxx
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Pacific-Basin Finance Journal

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/pacfin
A survey of Islamic finance research – Influences and influencers

Abdullah Khana, Syed Aun R. Rizvia, , Mohsin Alib, Omair Haroona
⁎
a
Suleman Dawood School of Business, Lahore University of Management Sciences (LUMS), Lahore, Pakistan
b
Taylor's Business School, Taylor's University, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT
Keywords: Islamic finance research has proliferated in the past five years. Between 1982 and 2020, a total of
Islamic finance research 315 research articles have been published in high quality journals. This paper undertakes a
Influential authors survey of this literature since 2005 and investigates the contributions of authors, institutions, and
Impact factor countries to the Islamic finance literature. Our analysis leads to ranking the impact of the authors
Citations/downloads
and institutions based on paper downloads and citations. Our focus is 242 papers published since
H-index
2015 contributed by 406 authors associated with 280 institutions from 57 countries. Our analysis
reveals that the ranking of authors, institutions and countries is neither constrained by religious
beliefs or geography (location in Muslim-majority countries) nor dependent on such character
istics of academic institutions. This implies that Islamic finance has a global academic appeal.
1. Introduction
There has been a significant increase in number of academic papers published in the area of Islamic Finance in top ranked journals
in recent years. We document that more than 75% of all Islamic Finance related papers published in ABDC A and A⁎ ranked journals
have been published since January 2015. In this study we attempt to discover the academics, institutions and countries that have
spurred research in this field through a comprehensive literature survey.
Islamic finance research while originating from Muslim majority countries has now spread globally and is undertaken in more
than 75 countries. However, as per IFSB (2019), based on the classification adopted by the World Bank and the International
Monetary Fund, Islamic finance has reached systematic importance in only 11 countries, namely: Iran, Sudan, Brunei, Saudi Arabia,
Kuwait, Malaysia, Qatar, the UAE, Bangladesh, Djibouti and Jordan. These countries are Muslim majority (population-wise) and
members of the Organization of Islamic Countries (OIC). Indonesia, Malaysia and Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries have
been the geographical regions that have contributed most to growth in Islamic Finance industry in recent years (S&P, 2020). We
survey the Islamic Finance literature to examine whether the growth therein corresponds with interest from academic institutions in
these countries or the academics' personal affiliation with the religion.
The growth of contemporary Islamic finance has roots in 1960s; however, the earliest academic papers on Islamic finance in the
mainstream literature appeared 1980's, with only five papers in that decade. The earlier works of Karsten (1982), Bashir (1983), Khan
(1986) and Darrat (1988) were conceptual works and explored the basic philosophy and ideology on which Islamic finance was
based. The growth of the literature since then has been exponential. Between 1982 and 2020, for instance, a total of 315 journal
articles have been published in high quality journals. Inspired by the work of Narayan and Phan (2019), we restrict our analysis to A
and A⁎ journals as classified by Australian Business Deans Council (ABDC). Hamermesh (2018) has suggested restricting the list of
journals to ensure a minimum benchmark of quality for journal publication. Our approach therefore is consistent with this literature.
⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: aun.raza@lums.edu.pk (S.A.R. Rizvi), mohsin.ali@taylors.edu.my (M. Ali), omair.haroon@lums.edu.pk (O. Haroon).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pacfin.2020.101437
Received 4 June 2020; Received in revised form 25 August 2020; Accepted 13 September 2020
0927-538X/ © 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Please cite this article as: Abdullah Khan, et al., Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pacfin.2020.101437
A. Khan, et al. Pacific-Basin Finance Journal xxx (xxxx) xxxx
Table 1
Theme-wise breakdown of papers.
Area Jan 2020 1982–2014 2015–Jan 2020
Banking 125 36 89
Equities 101 13 88
Sukuk 29 5 24
Theoretical 22 9 13
Funds 15 5 10
Shariah compliant firms 7 0 7
Corporate governance 5 1 4
Microfinance 3 1 2
Survey 3 0 3
Takaful 3 1 2
Derivatives 2 2
Total 315 73 242
The table provides the total number of papers published in Australian Business Deans Council (ABDC) A and A⁎ ranked journal. 75% of the
publications are from 2015 onwards. This list covers all A and A⁎ ranked publications from 1983 till January 2020. 1983 is the first
instance of an Islamic finance themed paper in this category of journals.
In total, there are 315 papers published in ABDC A and A⁎ ranked journals from January 1982 to January 2020. This includes the
five papers in 1980s, six in 1990's, 10 in 2000's. The breakdown of the journal articles by themes is provided in Table 1. The total
number of papers from 2015 till date is 242, representing around 75% of the papers published in good journals over the last four
decades. Our analysis is more geared towards the latter period consistent with Narayan and Phan (2019), who suggested that the
growth in this literature owes to of the rise in special issues on Islamic themes. Table 1 shows that most research since 2015 has been
conducted in two themes, namely banking and equities with 89 and 88 papers respectively. This is followed by papers on Sukuks
(Islamic Bonds), theoretical work and funds. Five themes combined constitute 224 of 242 papers.
For our ranking of authors and institutions, we have collected multiple measures for each article, namely article downloads, its
citations, and its impact factor and citations/download (CD) ratio. Our focus of ranking authors and institutions is based on the CD
ratio as this measure has become popular over the last two decades and statistically validated in numerous studies across the multiple
social science disciplines1 (see, for instance, Davis and Fromerth, 2007; Lippi and Favaloro, 2013; Moed, 2005; Nieder et al., 2013;
O'Leary, 2008; Perneger, 2004; Schloegl and Gorraiz, 2011; Xue-li et al., 2011). As a robustness check, we also use a normalized CD
variable,2 where the CD variable is adjusted for the article's age (see, for instance, Kreiman and Maunsell, 2011; and Opthof, 2011) as
newer papers would be relatively less cited due to time factor—the fact that the article is fresh. As another robustness check we have
looked at an alternative measure of normalizing Citations/downloads, CD is deflated by a square root of the number of years since
publication.3 This is to deflate the impact of longer duration since publication. Our findings remain unchanged.
This study extends the earlier literature surveys by Narayan and Phan (2019), Hassan and Aliyu (2018) and Alzahrani (2019) by
focusing on recent studies and identifying emerging trends in and directions of research in Islamic finance. We also identify and rank
academics and institutions that have helped shape these trends and directions. A few studies have identified influencers in business
related academic disciplines through ranking of authors and institutions. Chan et al. (2011) Borokovich et al. (2011) and Chan et al.
(2013) have focused on using citations as a means for ranking journal quality and authors in finance. Recently Hamermesh (2018)
extended the ranking literature by using citations as a function of downloads to rank economics faculty at the top-30 US business
schools. We use similar metrics to rank of authors and institutions in terms of their impact on and contributions to the discipline of
Islamic finance.
The rest of the paper has the following structure. Section 2 explores and explains the spread of Islamic finance research across
major themes. The ranking of the authors and institutions is discussed in Section 2 as well. The rankings are discussed for sub-themes
and then across all themes. This distinction helps understands not only the popularity of the themes (and hence implications for
future research) but also popularity and/or strengths of authors and institutions in those respective themes. Section 3 identifies the
main areas of research that have not been explored or have scope for more research. The final section summarizes the paper.
2. Existing research
This section has two parts. In the first part, we discuss the lessons learnt from current literature in each of the five major themes of
Islamic finance research. These lessons would allow us to identify specific research gaps in the literature (which appears in Section 3).
In the second part, we identify influential authors and institutions that have shaped the extant literature in each sub-theme and across
1
The CD ratio has become popular as all these studies consider it as a relatively true depiction of the impact a research paper makes. Number of
times cited by peers as a percentage of total reads (downloads) is translated as value or novelty of the research in terms of acceptability by peer
researcher.
2
Normalized CD is calculated by the following formula CD/(2020-Year published online) This adjusts the CD for how long the paper has been
available since publication for download and citation by peer researchers.
3
Normalized CD Alternative is calculated by the following formula CD/Square Root of (2020-Year published online)
2
all themes in Islamic finance.
2.1. Islamic banks
The area of Islamic banking is most popular within Islamic finance literature. With 125 papers since 1983, and 89 of them in last
5 years, Islamic banking literature has explored multiple issues, such as performance, risk, efficiency stability, and consumer demand.
A major stream in Islamic banking literature explores the role it plays in the overall economy. Abedifar et al. (2016) and Leon and
Weil (2018) documented a positive impact of Islamic banking on financial intermediation and economic welfare in low income
countries. Gheeraert (2014), Gheeraert and Weill (2015) Imam and Kpodar (2016) and Kumru and Sarntisart (2016) explored the
impact of Islamic banking on private credit and macroeconomic indicators. The channel of the positive impact of Islamic banking on
private credit to SME sector been argued by Aysan et al. (2016), Shaban et al. (2016) and Aysan and Disli (2019). While Fianto et al.
(2018) found evidence of equity-based microfinance as a key channel for improving income and economic state of the lower income
population. Aysan et al. (2019) and Caporale et al. (2020) argue the assistive role of monetary policy transmission through Islamic
banks has been a key factor in their popularity.
For the question of whether existence of these Islamic banks is divine, or demand driven, different opinions have emerged in the
literature. Pepinsky (2013) asserted that demand for Islamic finance is not primarily driven through ‘Shariah consciousness’ of
Muslims but rather origin of consumer demand lies in forces of globalization and modernization. These findings further are corro
borated by Azmat et al. (2015), Aysan et al. (2017) Minhat and Dzolkarnaini (2017) and Aysan et al. (2018) who argue that it is the
risk averseness and nature of customers that motivates them to opt for Islamic banks. Naz et al. (2017) relate the choice to managerial
attributes, while Baele et al. (2014) credit lower default rates as factors for growth in Islamic banking. At the same time Solarin et al.
(2018) argue that it's not religiosity, but it is pure economics factors like industrial production index, real interest rates on fixed and
saving deposits which have contributed to growth in Islamic banking. While recently Chazi et al. (2020) attribute it to relatively
smaller size of Islamic banking industry.
While there is considerable evidence that suggests promising future of Islamic finance in promoting economic development, the
present boom in Islamic finance industry is largely driven by better performance and efficiency on the part of Islamic financial
institutions. The studies on Islamic banking have primarily been in setup in a comparative sense (vis-a-vis their conventional
counterparts). The focus has been on measures like stability, performance, risk and efficiency. Studies in this stream were stimulated
by empirical evidence supporting superior performance of Islamic banks in the aftermath of global financial crisis of 2007. Yousefi
et al. (1997) were the earliest study to test the claim of the stability of the Islamic banking system compared to the western capitalistic
system. Their conclusion was mixed. In the second strand of the literature on stability, Kabir et al. (2015), Kabir and Worthington
(2017), Abuzayed and Molyneux (2018), Berger et al. (2019), and Chaffai (2019) presented mixed results with no conclusive evi
dence that Islamic banks were more stable. At the same time, Naqvi et al. (2018b), Azmi et al. (2019a) Albaity et al. (2019) and Rizvi
et al. (2019) presented empirical evidence supporting the competition-stability hypothesis. Azmi et al. (2019a, 2019b) in 11 dual
banking economies, and Rizvi et al. (2019) for Indonesia concluded that Islamic banks contribute towards the stability of the financial
system.
From an inquiry on stability, a major area of interest that has emerged since 2015 is the performance of Islamic banks. Many
studies (Alqahtani et al., 2016; Alqahtani and Boulanouar, 2017; and Alexakis et al., 2019) have concluded that Islamic banks
perform better in crisis situations, as evidenced during the global financial crisis (2007). One outcome reached by the literature is that
bank performance faltered as the financial crisis deepened, suggesting that even though Islamic banks are resilient to financial market
shocks they are not immune to shocks. Comparatively better performance of Islamic banks being explained by them being less risky
than conventional banks (see, for instance, Sorwar et al., 2016; Fakhfekh et al., 2016; and Hernandez et al., 2019). Pappas et al.
(2017) find Islamic banks having lower risk of failure owing to bank specific variables. This is supported by Saeed and Izzeldin
(2016), who suggest an inverted relationship between default risk and lower efficiency levels for Islamic banks. On the contrary, Zins
and Weill (2017) conclude that Basel II has adversely affected Islamic banks by increasing the risk gap between Islamic and con
ventional banks. Trinh et al. (2020) find evidence that contrary to findings from conventional banks, multiple outside directorships of
members of board of directors (board busyness) adversely affects performance and stability of Islamic banks.
In understanding these findings on risk and performance, Ibrahim (2016), Ibrahim and Rizvi (2018), and Aysan and Ozturk
(2018) find that, unlike conventional banks, Islamic banks' lending decisions are counter-cyclical and are not affected by business
cycles owing to difference in risk taking strategy of Islamic banks during periods of financial distress. But risks arising out of corporate
governance and agency problems in Islamic finance owing to twin boards of management and Shariah have been highlighted and
probed by the literature (see, inter alia, Athari et al., 2016; Ghosh, 2018; Safiullah and Shamsuddin, 2019a, 2019b; and Elamer et al.,
2019).
On the source of stability and profitability in Islamic banks, two streams are prevalent. One argues that it is the equity and state
contingent nature of contracts in Islamic banks that contribute to the relative stability of the Islamic banks (see, for instance, Wong
and Eng, 2018; Chaudry et al., 2018; and Yanikkaya et al., 2018). While the second stream of studies suggests it is not derived from
core competency, but location bound, recent studies have concluded on geographical location as the key driver (see, for instance,
Jawadi et al., 2017; Doumpos et al., 2017; and Beck et al., 2019).
Apart from profitability, a few studies have explored the efficiency of the Islamic banks. Belanès et al. (2015), Safiullah and
Shamsuddin (2019a, 2019b), and Bitar et al. (2018) have explored efficiency of Islamic banks compared to conventional banks and
have reported mixed findings. The causes of variable efficiency has been deliberated by Othman et al. (2017), Wanke et al. (2016)
and Chaffai and Hassan (2019) attribute it to factors like partnership contracts, cost structures and technological capacity.
3
Table 2
Author ranking for Islamic banking themed papers.
Ranking Author name #of papers Total downloads Total citations Impact factor Citations per year CD Normalized CD
1 Marwan Izzeldin 4 605 180 45.00 15.94 29.8% 26.6%

2 Mansor H. Ibrahim 4 756 163 40.75 11.50 21.6% 20.6%
3 Mohammad Kabir Hassan 8 1097 234 29.25 9.40 21.3% 19.2%
4 Mohammad Bitar 5 473 48 9.60 4.40 10.1% 8.9%
5 Mustafa Disli 5 1204 106 21.20 7.60 8.8% 8.7%
6 Ahmet F. Aysan 6 1280 109 18.17 6.58 8.5% 8.3%
7 Huseyin Ozturk 5 1280 109 21.80 7.90 8.5% 8.3%
8 Saad Azmat 4 764 59 14.75 3.75 7.7% 6.8%
9 Shawkat Hammoudeh 4 410 16 4.00 1.67 3.9% 3.9%
This table ranks authors on the basis of CD as a measure of the interest of readers. The list is restricted to authors having at least 4 papers in Islamic
banking from 2015 till January 2020.
Total Downloads are sourced from Plumx metrics. Total citations have been sourced from google scholar. Normalized CD is a measure which adjusts
the CD to article age to normalize the effect of older articles access.
Ancillary studies in Islamic banking have explored periphery topics like hazard rates (Alandejani et al., 2017), deposit insurance
premiums (Grira et al., 2016; Sabah and Hassan, 2019), and shareholder safeguards (Daher et al., 2015). All these studies suggest that
Islamic banks tend to perform relatively better than their counterparts on these parameters. Even in the case of bank transformation
from conventional to Islamic, Gregoriou et al. (2016) find a positive impact on liquidity of stocks of the bank.
Some post-2015 studies have focused on micro issues in Islamic banking. Sun et al. (2017) studied capital adequacy, management
quality and diversification for exploring the profit margins of Islamic banking. Bitar et al. (2017) linked capitalization to market
discipline, Meslier et al. (2017) argued for competition causing deposit rate setting in Islamic banks and Sukmana and Ibrahim (2017)
explored cointegration between Islamic investment rates and conventional interest rates. Sukmana and Ibrahim (2017) document
long run but asymmetrical relationship between these rates and conclude that Islamic banks are perhaps more concerned about their
consumers and less about profitability as compared to conventional banks.
As the research on Islamic banking evolved, questions have been raised on standard practices, with Abdelsalam et al. (2016)
arguing a conservative accounting policy approach in Islamic banking. Interestingly Belal et al. (2015) study ethical performance
disclosures in an Islamic bank and report that the disclosures have moved towards more universally accepted principles and away
from strictly Shariah compliance disclosures. Such improvements have been argued as a cause of increasing bank performance by
Platonova et al. (2016).
2.2. Influencers in Islamic banking research
The literature discussed earlier has been contributed by 185 authors from 142 institutions belonging to 39 countries. These 89
papers have garnered 18,703 downloads resulting in 2487 citations. This amounts to a 13.29% CD. Table 2 presents the ranking of
authors (who have published at least 4 papers) and Table 3 describes the ranking of institutions (who have published a minimum of 5
papers).
The researchers and institutions are ranked on CD (see, for instance, Bollen et al., 2005; Coats, 2008; Watson, 2009; Wan et al.,
2010; and Gorraiz et al., 2014). The rankings show that Marwan Izzeldin and Mansor Ibrahim are ranked as the two-top authors on
the CD scale, with over 20% downloads converting into citations.
In institutions, it can be mapped to authors ranking, as the top-three institutions correspond to the top three authors. But there is a
difference on third position in terms of impact factor, as the Central Bank of Turkey which is ranked fourth on normalized CD ratio
has a higher impact than the third ranked, University of New Orleans.
Table 3
Institutions ranking for Islamic banking themed papers.
Ranking Institution name #of paper Total downloads Total citations Impact factor Citations per year CD Normalized CD
1 Lancaster University 5 881 285 57.00 13.50 32.35% 30.2%

2 INCEIF 9 2174 389 43.22 10.25 17.89% 16.5%
3 University of New Orleans 6 709 118 19.67 6.08 16.64% 16.0%
4 Central Bank of Turkey 5 1629 156 31.20 8.36 9.58% 9.5%
5 LUMS 8 1118 106 13.25 4.25 9.48% 9.7%
6 Ghent University 5 1204 106 21.20 7.60 8.80% 8.7%
This table ranks institutions on the basis of CD as a measure of the interest of readers. If a paper has more than one authors from same institution, it
is only counted as one paper from that institution. The list is restricted to institutions having at least 5 papers in Islamic banking from 2015 till
January 2020.
4
2.3. Equities
Islamic equities are another domineering stream of literature within Islamic finance. With 101 papers since 1983, and 88 of them
in last 5 years, Islamic equities literature investigating multiple issues consisting of asset pricing, performance, seasonal effects,
trading strategies and contagion in equity markets.
Several studies in this literature relate to the comparative performance of Islamic and conventional stocks and indices. Studies like
Narayan and Bannigidadmath (2017), Narayan et al. (2017), Narayan et al. (2016b), Alaoui (2017), Dharani et al. (2019) and
Alhomaidi et al. (2019) find Islamic stocks to be better performing as compared to their conventional counterparts. Contrary to these
studies, Ashraf (2016) finds no evidence for Shariah screening being the cause for superior returns. Differing from previous studies
which have compared Islamic indices with conventional counterparts (which may contain Islamic constituents as well), Safiullah and
Shamsuddin (2019a, 2019b) compare Islamic equity portfolios with non-Islamic portfolios and find Islamic portfolios to be superior.
Many scholars studied risk as an important aspect of performance of Islamic equities. The argument that Islamic stocks and
conventional stocks exhibit differing risk and return profiles is known as decoupling hypothesis. Yilmaz et al. (2015) find Islamic
equity indices to be vulnerable to global shocks emanating from global conventional financial system. Along with Shahzad et al.
(2017), they do not find evidence for the decoupling hypothesis. Similarly, Rizvi et al. (2015), Balcılar et al. (2015) and Mwamba
et al. (2017) find Islamic investors to be at the receiving end when shocks in the market are of a structural nature. However, Hkiri
et al. (2017) using data from 1999 to 2014 find evidence in favor of the decoupling hypothesis which is also supported by Ashraf et al.
(2017). As far as interest rate risk is concerned, Akhtar et al. (2017) and Umar et al. (2018) find interest rate to have lesser impact on
returns of Islamic stocks as compared to their conventional counterparts. Sensoy (2016) and Rizvi and Arshad (2018a, 2018c) find
systematic risk to be higher in conventional markets. Interestingly, they find no difference in systematic risk in the two markets
during the global financial risk. However, Shahzad et al. (2018) find evidence of differences in systematic risk between Islamic and
conventional stock markets.
As far as investing in Islamic equities is concerned, Umar (2017) finds that investing in Islamic stocks is desirable in both short and
long run though it results in welfare losses. On the other hand, for conventional investors, Islamic stocks are desirable only in the long
run. Narayan and Phan (2017), Narayan et al. (2017) and Dewandaru et al. (2015) discover momentum strategies that are useful for
Islamic stock investors. Raza and Ashraf (2019) study the weighting strategies and found smart beta shariah compliant equity
portfolios perform better than both conventional and shariah compliancy market capitalization weighted portfolios. While studying
shariah compliant stocks, Boudt et al. (2019b) suggest using alternative weighting methods instead of market capitalization
weighting improves risk-adjusted return. Similarly, Markov Regime Driven Style allocation (MRDS) strategy is proposed by Boudt
et al. (2019a) as compared to single style strategies as MRDS improves the overall performance of Islamic stocks.
Predicting equity market returns and performance is an enduring field of research. For Islamic equities, Narayan et al. (2016a,
2016b) grapple with the traditional question of whether returns on stocks are predictable and discover 12 predictors of returns for
Islamic stocks. Narayan et al. (2019) in another study dismiss the view that oil prices affect the Islamic stock market homogeneously.
Jawadi et al. (2018) find similar levels of uncertainty between Islamic and other ethical stocks and both are found to be affected by
level of uncertainty found in mainstream American stocks. Ftiti and Hadhri (2019) and Merdad et al. (2015) recommend the use of
multifactor models for Islamic stocks to enhance predictability.
Another important strand of literature is related to diversification/hedging strategies. Nagayev et al. (2016) explore the potential
of commodities market as a source of diversification for Islamic equity indices investors. They find gold, natural gas, soft com
modities, grains and livestock to be good resource for portfolio diversification. Similarly, Mensi et al. (2015), Mensi et al. (2016),
Maghyereh et al. (2019) and Alkhazali and Zoubi (2020) suggest that gold helps to diversify stakes in Islamic equities. Hassan et al.
(2019) studied correlation between oil and Islamic equities in emerging markets and find hedging performance of Islamic indices to
be better as compared to their conventional counterparts in emerging markets. Rahim and Masih (2016) find diversification benefits
for Malaysian Islamic stock investors who invest in American Islamic stocks indices. Mensi et al. (2017) find conventional stocks as a
good hedge against risk in Islamic stocks. On the other hand, Mazouz et al. (2016) and Alaoui et al. (2015) find Islamic stocks to be
co-moving with different market indices.
Another major area of interest that has emerged since 2015 is the characteristics of Islamic capital markets. Majdoub and Sassi
(2017) find evidence for volatility spillover from Chinese to Asian Islamic stock markets. Nazlioglu et al. (2015) do a similar study but
for the United States, Europe and Asia. Al-Khazali et al. (2017) find evidence for decrease in volatility of Islamic stocks during
Ramadan. For other calendar anomalies, see Al-Khazali and Mirzaei (2017), Narayan et al. (2017) and Abalala and Sollis (2015). Nasr
et al. (2016), Kenourgios et al. (2016) and Alexakis et al. (2017) find Islamic equity indices to be highly resilient during market
downtrend. Stavroyiannis and Babalos (2017) find that US Islamic Dow Jones stocks do not show herding behavior especially during
times of distress.
Bringing non-shariah compliance and behavioral aspect into question, Al-Awadhi and Dempsey (2017) find stocks that go against
societal norms of Shariah compliance remain neglected despite having higher returns. In a similar study Almansour and Ongena
(2018) find investors reacting negatively to announcement of listed companies taking non Shariah compliant loans. Hutchinson et al.
(2018) prove no triviality of purification for Shariah conscious investors as the entire basis of Islamic stock market rests on pur
ification of returns. Alqahtani and Boulanouar (2017) use data from Saudi IPOs and find individual investors care more about shariah
compliance while institutional investors were found to be more concerned about profitability. Zaman et al. (2018) call for abolishing
of tax shield for debt and propose giving tax benefits to companies that opt for equity. Azmat et al. (2017) assert that Islamic bonds
and Islamic stocks are ‘crowding out’ real ideal Islamic profit loss sharing contracts like Mudaraba and Musharaka. Another inter
esting study by Al-Awadhi (2019) on Kuwait market suggests that Islamic institutional investors hold more lottery-type stocks as
5
Table 4
Author ranking for Islamic equities themed papers.
Ranking Author name #of paper Total downloads Total citations Impact factor Citations per year CD Normalized CD
1 Joakim Westerlund 4 195 77 19.25 6.13 39.5% 41.2%

2 Paresh Kumar Narayan 10 621 231 23.10 9.17 37.2% 36.7%
3 Dinh Hoang Bach Phan 7 469 161 23.00 9.40 34.3% 34.6%
4 Syed Jawad Hussain Shahzad 5 429 87 17.40 7.70 20.3% 20.4%
5 Walid Mensi 5 745 142 28.40 8.50 19.1% 18.8%
6 ShawkatHammoudeh 10 1561 238 23.80 6.69 15.2% 14.5%
7 Dawood Ashraf 6 1174 150 25.00 7.83 12.8% 10.8%
8 Ahmet Sensoy 4 807 99 24.75 6.23 12.3% 11.1%
9 Mohammad Kabir Hassan 5 879 78 15.60 4.62 8.9% 7.4%
10 Mansur Masih 7 2116 168 24.00 5.70 7.9% 7.6%
11 AbdelKaderOuatik El-Alaoui 4 1194 76 19.00 4.18 6.4% 5.5%
12 Obiyathulla I. Bacha 5 1316 54 10.80 2.89 4.1% 4.0%
This table ranks authors on the basis of CD as a measure of the interest of readers. The list is restricted to authors having at least 4 papers in Islamic
equities from 2015 till January 2020.
compared to their non-Islamic counterparts which is tantamount to deviation from shariah compliant trading norms. Almansour
(2019) studied the Saudi market and make an interesting observation that if majority of shariah scholars agree on non-compliance of
a firm then the subscription of its IPOs drops by 60% but on the other hand if there is disagreement amongst the scholars regarding a
firm then investors do not change their reaction.
Dividend policy is relatively less-touched area when it comes to Islamic equities. Imamah et al. (2019) find that shariah compliant
firms have higher dividend payout ratios as compared to their conventional counterparts. They conclude that Islamic law impacts the
dividend policy in Muslim countries. While studying Islamic asset pricing, Hammami (2019) infer that price-dividend ratio predicts
dividend growth.
Since Islamic stocks have now firmly established their presence in the industry, more attention is now being paid to research in
investment strategies, mutual funds and Sukuks.
2.4. Influencers in Islamic equities research
The literature in equities has been contributed by 163 authors from 123 institutions belonging to 42 countries. These 88 papers
have garnered 13,235 downloads resulting in 1582 citations, equivalent to 11.95% citations per download. Table 4 presents the
ranking of authors (at least 5 papers) and Table 5 shows ranking of institutions (minimum 5 papers).
The rankings show that Joakim Westerlund, Paresh Kumar Narayan and Dinh Hoang Bach Phan are ranked as the top three
author/s on citations/download scale, with over 30% downloads converting into citations. While two of these top authors, Paresh
Kumar Narayan and Dinh Hoang Bach Phan have an impact factor over 23. On the relevance of institutions, it can be mapped to
authors rankings, as the top institution correspond to the two of the top-three authors. But in terms of impact factor, INCEIF (second
ranked) is higher than Deakin University (top ranked). Interestingly, and as expected, the normalized CD would rank INCEIF lower
while Deakin University maintains its top spot.
Table 5
Institutions ranking for Islamic equities themed papers.
1 Deakin University 12 1450 540 45.00 8.49 37.24% 36.78%

2 INCEIF 9 2399 461 51.22 5.20 19.22% 7.69%
3 Montpellier Business School 8 651 125 15.63 6.33 19.20% 17.12%
4 IRTI 6 913 150 25.00 7.83 16.43% 10.83%
5 Durham University 5 585 96 19.20 3.90 16.41% 4.98%
6 American University of Sharjah 5 473 56 11.20 3.19 11.84% 6.35%
7 IPAG Business School 7 1213 142 20.29 4.80 11.71% 8.55%
8 Drexel University 7 1882 199 28.43 7.70 10.57% 19.62%
9 University of Tunis El Manar 6 1.98 6 7.42 532 1.13% 14.63%
is only counted as one paper from that institution. The list is restricted to institutions having at least 5 papers in Islamic banking from 2015 till
January 2020.
6
2.5. Sukuk (Islamic bonds)
The Sukuk literature has evolved recently, with 24 papers post 2015. Prior to 2015 there were only 4 published papers focusing on
issues in Sukuk. The current literature on Sukuk covers multiple aspects of these fixed income instruments ranging from performance
to structures.
Primarily the popular theme is the interlinkages of Sukuk with Islamic and conventional equities, and banking (See: Aloui et al.,
2015; Naifar and Hammoudeh, 2016; Smaoui et al., 2017; Naifar et al., 2017; Mimouni et al., 2019). While Smaoui et al. (2017)
conclude Sukuks as substitutes of bank financing, Naifar et al. (2017) conclude otherwise. Aloui et al. (2015) and Naifar and
Hammoudeh (2016) find Sukuks commoving with global equities.
Another stream within Sukuk literature has emerged on exploration of why firms raise capital using Sukuks. In this Godlewski
et al. (2016) conclude, positive impact on market value of the firm as critical factor. While Halim et al. (2017) conclude it as an
alternative for firms facing problems of underinvestment and high agency cost of free cash flow. Nagano (2017) confirms these
findings by suggesting the valuation impact as well as information asymmetry as a reason for capital raising to Sukuk.
Conceptual question on legal form versus substance debate on Sukuks as unique instruments has been explored by Lai et al.
(2017), Shafron (2019) and Warsame and Ireri (2016b) with contradictory findings on whether religious quarters demand for Sukuk
exists or it is merely another instrument in the larger fixed income market. Some recent studies argue different reasons for its
popularity, Azmat et al. (2017) suggest immunity to financial shock while Halim et al. (2019) suggesting the Shariah certification as
means to lower bond spreads.
Value of proposition of Sukuk for public debt management for developing countries has recently emerged in literature. Önder
(2016) recommends employing Sukuk as a possible solution to sovereign debt crisis. While Ismath Bacha and Mirakhor (2018) and
Rizvi and Arshad (2018a, 2018c) delve into risk sharing innovative Sukuk structures for sovereign debt financing.
2.6. Influencers in Sukuk (Islamic bonds) research
The 24 papers on Sukuk have been contributed by 46 authors from 35 institutions. These 24 papers have garnered 3098
downloads resulting in 343 citations leading to a 11.07% citations per download. Table 6 presents the ranking of authors (at least 2
papers) while ranking of institutions (minimum 2 papers) is presented in Table 7.
Amongst authors it is interesting to find that 4 of the top 5 authors have a high citation/ download of over 20%. The five top
authors combined have contributed 45% of the literature on the Sukuk. Christophe J. Godlewski, Rima Turk-Ariss and Chaker Aloui
are the top three researchers in this sub-stream of Islamic finance. While amongst institutions, University of Strasbourg, Queensland
University of Technology and Monash University are the leaders in Sukuk research.
2.7. Theoretical studies
The theoretical studies in Islamic finance is the only category where there was relatively considerable research in pre 2015 era. A
total of 22 papers explore theoretical concepts, out of which 9 are pre-2015 and 13 are published in the post 2015-time period. These
theoretical studies albeit less in number in the larger context, but have explored multitude of areas spanning from ontology of Islamic
finance, value proposition of risk sharing paradigm and critique of current state of Islamic finance industry.
With risk sharing at the core of Islamic finance, Rizvi and Arshad (2018a, 2018c) suggested risk sharing papers to counter sudden
stops in developing economies as an alternative to traditional murababha and ijarah contracts. But Amrani (2018) suggested that dual
pricing is the reason for dominance of Murabaha and Ijarah contracts over risk sharing contracts. Interestingly countering claims of
Islamic finance, Kuran (2018) argues for no fundamental difference between products offered by Islamic financial institutions and
their conventional counterparts. This is further discussed by Wong and Eng (2018) on an economic shock perspective and conclude
that Islamic contracts are relatively more receptive to lending in bad macroeconomic.
Some studies have focused on idiosyncrasies of Islamic finance (See: Elnahas et al., 2017; Zaman et al., 2018) to understand the
complexities. Both propose alternatives to improving the Shariahc compliance of Islamic finance instrument by introducing Shariah
compliant measure of corporate liquidity and equity-tax incentives as opposed to the present tax incentive on debt respectively.
Table 6
Author ranking for Islamic bonds research.
1 Christophe J. Godlewski 2 326 93 46.50 13.50 28.5% 23.1%

2 Rima Turk-Ariss 2 375 83 41.50 10.58 22.1% 19.5%
3 Chaker Aloui 2 312 64 32.00 6.55 20.5% 16.4%
4 Shawkat Hammoudeh 2 394 80 40.00 8.43 20.3% 19.5%
5 Laurent Weill 3 598 98 32.67 9.56 16.4% 13.6%
This table ranks authors on the basis of CD as a measure of the interest of readers. The list is restricted to authors having at least 3 papers on Sukuk
from 2015 till January 2020.
7
Table 7
Institutions ranking for Islamic bonds research.
1 University of Strasbourg 3 777 113 37.67 9.04 14.54% 12.18%

2 Queensland University of 4 819 85 21.25 6.20 10.38% 9.54%
Technology
3 Monash University 3 672 66 22.00 5.08 9.82% 10.14%
4 Qatar University 3 720 5z 18.00 2.60 7.50% 5.24%
5 University of New Orleans 3 257 13 4.33 2.60 5.06% 5.06%
6 University of Strasbourg 3 777 113 37.67 9.04 14.54% 12.18%
is only counted as one paper from that institution. The list is restricted to institutions having at least 3 papers on Sukuk from 2015 till January 2020.
Despite many valuable studies, there is still dearth of theoretical literature in Islamic finance with Ebrahim et al. (2016), pro
posing to anchor Islamic finance research in financial economics instead framing it in superficial juridical legalities.
2.8. Influencers in theoretical Islamic finance research
The 13 papers on Theoretical topics in Islamic finance have been contributed by 27 authors from 22 institutions. These 13 papers
have garnered 3008 downloads resulting in 143 citations leading to 4.75% citations per download. Table 8 presents the ranking of
authors (Top 5) and Table 9 shows ranking of institutions (Top 5).
The ranking shows that Timur Kuran is the top author in this category with Aziz Jafar, Fatma A. Omar, Murizah Osman Sallah and
Shahid Ebrahim jointly sharing the second position. While amongst institutions, Duke University is the most influential institution in
theoretical research in Islamic finance.
2.9. Funds
There are total of 15 papers in this stream of research, with two-third of these 15 published in 2015–2020 period. Studies on
Islamic funds primarily deal with comparative analysis of fund performance and persistence in crisis and post crisis period.
With Gad and Andrikopoulos (2019) documenting diversification benefits of Shariah compliant equity funds for institutional
investors, most studies have focused on performance of Islamic funds and conclude on mixed evidence (See: Hayat and Kraeussl,
2011; Nainggolan et al., 2016; Boo et al., 2017). While Hayat and Kraeussl (2011) and Kamil et al. (2014) Nainggolan et al. (2016)
suggest islamic funds underperforming the benchmark in majority times, Boo et al. (2017) provide evidence of Islamic funds out
performing in crisis time. On comparison of performance of Islamic funds to their conventional counterparts, El-Masry et al. (2016)
and Omri et al. (2019) find contradicting evidence. While El-Masry et al. (2016) find Islamic funds performing worse than con
ventional funds, Omri et al. (2019) find Islamic funds outperforming conventional counterparts in Saudi domestic market.
This literature is extended by Azmi et al. (2019b) who compare Islamic funds with the socially responsible funds and find both to
be underperforming the benchmark. They attribute underperformance to managerial skills and the resulting costs of screening which
constraints the investment universe and calls for frequent rebalancing and imposes capital structure constraints.
On causes of outperformance or underperformance, Naqvi et al. (2018a) assert that outperformance arises out of country dif
ferences or style of investing rather than an Islamic alpha. Adding to this Reddy et al. (2017) find that Shariah screening does not
have negative impact on Islamic mutual funds, while Hammami and Oueslati (2017) attribute it to skilled Islamic funds managers.
Abdelsalam et al. (2014) and Abdelsalam et al. (2017) find evidence for performance persistence in top Islamic funds but fail to
find any evidence of persistence in funds performing at lower end. Azmi et al. (2018) find evidence for ‘smart money effect’ in socially
responsible and Shariah compliant funds. A similar study was done by Hammami and Oueslati (2017) and they too find evidence for
skilled Islamic funds managers.
Table 8
Author ranking for theoretical research.
1 Timur Kuran 1 169 46 46.00 2300.0% 27.2% 27.2%

2 Aziz Jaafar 1 91 22 22.00 550.0% 24.2% 24.2%
3 Fatma A. Omar 1 91 22 22.00 550.0% 24.2% 24.2%
4 Murizah Osman Salleh 1 91 22 22.00 550.0% 24.2% 24.2%
5 Shahid Ebrahim 1 91 22 22.00 550.0% 24.2% 24.2%
This table ranks authors on the basis of CD as a measure of the interest of readers. The list is restricted to top 5 authors.
8
Table 9
Institutions ranking for theoretical research.
Ranking Institution name #of paper Total downloads Total Impact Citations per CD Normalized CD
citations factor year
1 Duke University 1.00 169 46 46.00 23.00 27.22% 27.22%

2 University of Durham 1.00 91 22 22.00 5.50 24.18% 24.18%
3 Bank Negara Malaysia 1.00 91 22 22.00 5.50 24.18% 24.18%
4 Institute of Finance Management 1.00 182 44 44.00 5.50 24.18% 24.18%
Tanzania
5 University of Melbourne 1.00 246 18 18.00 3.60 7.32% 7.32%
is only counted as one paper from that institution. The list is restricted to top 5 institutions.
Table 10
Author ranking for funds research.
1 Mohamed Eskandar Shah 2 55 5 2.50 1.75 9.1% 10.3%

2 Shamsher Mohamad 2 55 5 2.50 1.75 9.1% 10.3%
3 Wajahat Azmi 2 55 5 2.50 1.75 9.1% 10.3%
This table ranks authors on the basis of CD as a measure of the interest of readers. The list is restricted to authors having at least 2 papers on Funds
from 2015 till January 2020.
2.10. Influencers in Islamic funds research
The 10 papers on Funds have been contributed by 21 authors from 21 institutions. These 10 papers have garnered 2955
downloads resulting in 194 citations leading to 6.57% citations per download. Table 10 presents the ranking of authors (at least 2
papers) and ranking of institutions (minimum 2 papers) is described in Table 11.
The top three authors Mohamed Eskandar Shah, Shamsher Mohamad and Wajahat Azmi have primarily worked together, and are
associated with INCEIF when their research were published. This then translates into INCEIF being the major influencer in studies on
Islamic funds.
2.11. Overall author and institutions ranking
Tables 12, 13 and 14 provide ranking of top authors, institutions, and countries respectively. They have been ranked on highest
citation/download ratio. In case of author ranking for robustness test, we also use the H-index4 introduced by Hirsch (2005). But we
note the concern with the H-index treating papers equally once they pass the threshold. We also use the G-index5 (Egghe, 2006) as
another robustness checks Both the H-index and the G-index are normalized for a paper's age to validate our findings.
Amongst the overall author rankings, the insights are interesting, as the top-two authors are associated with universities and
countries which are not core Islamic finance institutions. Paresh K. Narayan from Deakin University has published 12 papers since
2015 and has a citations/download of 28.69%. He is followed by Dinh Hoang Bach Phan, who during the same time period has been
affiliated with Deakin University, Monash University Malaysia and Taylor's University. Third ranked is Syed Aun R. Rizvi who has
been affiliated with University of Nottingham and the Lahore University of Management Sciences (LUMS). These three authors have a
citations/download in excess of 20%. In terms of papers, Mohammed Kabir Hassan from University of New Orleans tops the table
with 20 A and A⁎ papers during this time period as well as amongst all Islamic finance authors.
In terms of H-index, Shawkat Hammoudeh is ranked highest with an h-index of 10, followed by Paresh K. Narayan and Kabir
Hassan at 9 and Dinh Phan at 8. But with Shawkat Hammoudeh, when G-index is calculated and the normalized H- Index6 & G-
4
The h-index is defined as the maximum value of h such that the given author/journal has published h papers that have each been cited at least h
times.
5
The index is calculated based on the distribution of citations received by a given researcher's publications, such that given a set of articles ranked
in decreasing order of the number of citations that they received, the g-index is the unique largest number such that the top g articles received
together at least g2 citations
6
Normalized H-index is calculated by the following formula H-index/(2020-Year published online) This adjusts the H-index for how long the
paper has been available since publication for download and citation by peer researchers.
9
A. Khan, et al.
Table 11
Institutions ranking for funds research.
1 INCEIF 2 165 15 7.50 1.75 9.09% 10.26%

2 SP Jain School of Global Management Dubai 2 411 11 5.50 2.08 2.68% 2.79%
10
3 LUMS 2 411 11 5.50 2.08 2.68% 2.79%
This table ranks institutions on the basis of CD as a measure of the interest of readers. If a paper has more than one authors from same institution, it is only counted as one paper from that institution. The
list is restricted to institutions having at least 2 papers on Funds from 2015 till January 2020.
Total Downloads are sourced from Plumx metrics. Total citations have been sourced from google scholar. Normalized CD is a measure which adjusts the CD to article age to normalize the effect of older
articles access.
A. Khan, et al.
Table 12
Author ranking for all Islamic finance themed papers.
Ranking Author name #of paper Total Total Impact Citations per CD Normalized CD Normalized CD h-index g-index Normalized h- Normalized g-
downloads citations factor year alternative index index
1 Paresh Kumar Narayan 12 962 276 23.00 11.39 28.69% 24.98% 26.81% 9 6 4 3
2 Dinh Hoang Bach Phan 8 800 201 25.13 13.23 25.13% 21.86% 23.43% 8 5 4 3
3 Syed Aun R. Rizvi 6 527 120 20.00 6.79 22.77% 19.28% 20.86% 4 2 2 2
4 Walid Mensi 7 765 142 20.29 6.07 18.56% 17.72% 18.11% 5 4 4 2
5 Syed Jawad Hussain 6 513 88 14.67 6.50 17.15% 17.00% 17.08% 5 3 3 2
Shahzad
6 Laurent Weill 7 1491 228 32.57 9.70 15.29% 14.04% 14.64% 6 5 4 3
7 Mansor H. Ibrahim 5 1205 173 34.60 10.20 14.36% 12.01% 13.13% 5 4 3 3
8 Kym Brown 5 1239 177 35.40 10.30 14.29% 15.56% 14.92% 5 4 4 3
9 Shawkat Hammoudeh 16 2365 334 20.88 5.65 14.12% 12.83% 13.44% 10 5 4 2
10 Dawood Ashraf 8 1503 212 26.50 7.90 14.11% 11.75% 13.01% 6 6 4 2
11
11 Mohammad Kabir 20 3770 400 20.00 7.20 10.61% 9.79% 10.24% 9 7 5 3
Hassan
12 Mustafa Disli 6 1411 147 24.50 8.04 10.42% 9.98% 10.20% 5 5 4 2
13 Mohammad Bitar 5 473 48 9.60 4.40 10.15% 8.85% 9.67% 3 3 2 2
14 Mansur Masih 8 2359 235 29.38 6.66 9.96% 9.30% 9.64% 6 5 4 3
15 Ahmet F. Aysan 6 1280 109 18.17 6.58 8.52% 8.34% 8.43% 4 4 4 3
16 Huseyin Ozturk 5 1280 109 21.80 7.90 8.52% 8.34% 8.43% 4 4 4 3
17 Saad Azmat 7 1121 95 13.57 3.81 8.47% 8.04% 8.30% 4 2 3 2
18 Abdoulkarim Idi 5 976 78 15.60 4.09 7.99% 7.63% 7.84% 4 2 2 2
Cheffou
19 FredjJawadi 5 976 78 15.60 4.09 7.99% 7.63% 7.84% 4 2 2 2
20 Obiyathulla I. Bacha 6 1495 55 9.17 2.49 3.68% 3.41% 3.55% 4 2 2 2
This table ranks authors on the basis of CD as a measure of the interest of readers. The list is restricted to authors having at least 5 papers in Islamic finance from 2015 till January 2020.
articles access. Normalized CD Alternative is an alternative measure which adjusts the CD to square root function of article age.
A. Khan, et al.
Table 13
Institutions ranking for all Islamic finance themed papers.
Ranking Institution name #of paper Total downloads Total citations Impact factor Citations per year CD Normalized CD Normalized CD alternative
1 Deakin University 18 1269 321 17.83 8.57 25.30% 22.13% 23.69%

2 Drexel University 13 1795 295 22.69 5.96 16.43% 14.96% 15.68%
3 IRTI 8 1503 212 26.5 7.9 14.11% 11.75% 13.01%
4 University of Nottingham 8 1212 166 20.75 6.66 13.70% 10.25% 11.93%
5 Montpellier Business School 10 1076 134 13.4 5.38 12.45% 12.64% 12.53%
6 University of New Orleans 20 3770 400 20 7.2 10.61% 9.79% 10.24%
12
7 IPAG Business School 8 1599 151 18.88 4.57 9.44% 8.53% 9.00%
8 INCEIF 21 4590 430 20.48 5.83 9.37% 8.47% 8.93%
9 LUMS 16 2081 189 11.81 4.38 9.08% 9.24% 9.16%
10 American University of Sharjah 9 762 65 7.22 3.24 8.53% 9.00% 8.76%
11 Durham University 8 4798 305 38.13 9.78 6.36% 6.17% 6.26%
This table ranks institutions on the basis of CD as a measure of the interest of readers. If a paper has more than one authors from same institution, it is only counted as one paper from that institution. The
list is restricted to institutions having at least 8 papers in Islamic finance from 2015 till January 2020.
articles access. Normalized CD Alternative is an alternative measure which adjusts the CD to square root function of article age.
Table 14
Country ranking for all Islamic finance themed papers.
Ranking Country name #of paper Total Total Impact Citations per CD Normalized CD Normalized CD
downloads citations factor year alternative
1 Australia 43 13,268 1996 46.42 8.53 15.04% 15.63% 15.16%

2 Saudi Arabia 33 7481 951 28.82 5.63 12.71% 11.07% 11.84%
3 France 37 10,776 1364 36.86 6.31 12.66% 12.94% 12.31%
4 Malaysia 44 14,378 1786 40.59 6.90 12.42% 13.76% 11.96%
5 Belgium 10 2106 254 25.40 8.80 12.06% 12.54% 11.60%
6 United States of 55 13,769 1407 25.58 7.57 10.22% 10.76% 10.14%
America
7 Tunisia 19 2900 294 15.47 4.53 10.14% 9.22% 9.68%
8 Pakistan 28 4316 399 14.25 4.49 9.24% 9.91% 9.03%
9 Turkey 19 8178 747 39.32 6.66 9.13% 10.09% 9.16%
10 United Arab 17 2626 227 13.35 4.71 8.64% 9.23% 8.69%
Emirates
11 New Zealand 9 2758 215 23.89 4.84 7.80% 9.33% 7.88%
12 United Kingdom 51 34,654 2373 46.53 8.19 6.85% 7.12% 7.08%
This table ranks countries on the basis of CD as a measure of the interest of readers. If a paper has more than one authors from same country, it is
only counted as one paper from that country. The list is restricted to institutions having at least 8 papers in Islamic finance from 2015 till January
2020.
the CD to article age to normalize the effect of older articles access. Normalized CD Alternative is an alternative measure which adjusts the CD to
square root function of article age.
indices7 give him a lower rank. An interesting finding from the H-index and G-index is the relationship with number of papers: Paresh
K. Narayan and Kabir Hassan both are at 9, but with 12 and 20 publications, respectively. And Dinh Phan has an H-index of 8 with 8
total papers, which suggests the higher impact created by Dinh Phan through all of his publications.
The author rankings translate partially into Institutional rankings as well where Deakin University has the highest citations/
download ratio. This can be attributed to the top two authors who have been affiliated with Deakin University. Deakin is followed by
Drexel University and Montpellier Business School. The highest number of papers, are published by INCEIF (21 papers), a boutique
Islamic finance institution followed by the University of New Orleans (20 papers), and Deakin University (18 papers). Interestingly, in
INCEIF, 7 unique authors contributed to the 21 papers, 5 in Deakin University and only 1 author has contributed all the 20 papers
from University of New Orleans. Interestingly, amongst the top-11 institutions, only IRTI, LUMS, American University of Sharjah, and
INCEIF ranked at 4, 7,8 and 10 are based in OIC member countries, and amongst them only 3 (minus LUMS) are from countries where
Islamic finance is of systemic importance.
For country ranking, similar finding has been noticed, as Australia is ranked highest on CD followed by Saudi Arabia, France and
Malaysia. But in terms of number of papers, highest number of papers are from United States, 55, followed by United Kingdom, 51;
Malaysia, 44 and Australia 43. Similar to institutional affiliation, amongst the top 11 countries only Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, Tunisia,
Pakistan, United Arab Emirates and Turkey ranked at 2, 4, 7, 8, 9 and 10 respectively are Muslim majority and OIC member
countries. Within them Islamic finance is only systemically significant in Malaysia, Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates.
These findings actually suggest that Islamic finance research is not constrained by religious motivations or by geographically
Muslim majority countries and institutions, which bodes well for the development of research in this emerging area. The top two
authors, top three institutions, and top two countries are all jurisdictions which are neither Muslim majority nor have systemically
significant Islamic financial sector.
3. Research gaps and future direction
Our survey and ranking of Islamic finance literature highlights some key challenges in terms of research gap which present an
opportunity for future research.
As also highlighted by Narayan and Phan (2019) and Ibrahim and Alam (2018), there is a dearth of theoretical literature in
Islamic finance. Most of the research is empirically driven and comparative in nature with traditional finance and economic theories
borrowed. First future research opportunity lies in extending Islamic finance research beyond the comparative analysis. Nearly 75%
of the papers from 2015 onwards are comparative papers with their conventional counterparts. Islamic finance literature needs to
stand independently for its own uniqueness. This leads to the second research gap which is on theoretical studies into the funda
mentals of Islamic finance, to define the uniqueness of Islamic finance. The current theoretical studies focus on micro aspects of
7
The CD ratio has become popular as all these studies consider it as a relatively true depiction of the impact a research paper makes. Number of
times cited by peers as a percentage of total reads (downloads) is translated as value or novelty of the research in terms of acceptability by peer
researcher.
.
.
13
Islamic finance, and not on macro scale (See: Amrani, 2018; Ebrahim et al., 2016 etc.).
The uniqueness of dataset is a major gap which needs to be explored. With Islamic finance prevalent in nearly half of the 200
countries globally, development of new datasets with legal and domestic attributes is an opportunity worth exploring. The dataset
question also gives rise to expansion of research on asset pricing. While preliminary work has started to be published but much more
needs to be achieved. There is non-existent literature on robust pricing of Sukuk structures. While innovative structures are proposed
and tested like Rizvi and Arshad (2018a, 2018c) but their pricing aspects have not been investigated.
While much has been explored on equities 88 papers, banking 89 papers since 2015, but most of it has been focused on broad
aggregated level. There is a major research gap on exploring topics related to traditional corporate finance. Topics like, how presence
of Islamic debt in capital structure modify the value propositions or agency problems etc.
A research opportunity which has been highlighted by Narayan and Phan (2019) and multiple editor notes of Islamic finance
special issues is the emphasis from academics on statistical and econometric analysis and not the intuitive understanding and im
plication of research. There is still a dearth of empirical research that informs policy and generates impactful insights for Islamic
finance industry.
4. Concluding remarks
This survey and ranking paper is in response to a significant growth in Islamic finance research published in good journals
emanating from all over the world. As earlier authors had identified and this study concurs, a decade ago there were very limited
papers on Islamic finance. A total of 315 papers have been published in ABDC A and A⁎ ranked journals since 1982. These represent 5
papers in 1980s, 6 papers in 1990s; 10 papers in 2000s, 54 papers from 2010 to 2014 and 242 papers from 2015 to January 2020.
With focus on the recent upswing from 2015 onwards which contribute 75% of all papers published, we explore the scope and
challenges in Islamic finance research. This understanding allows us to identify how the Islamic finance research can be shaped for
future and key research gaps still prevalent. This review also enables us to identify the authors, institutions and countries that have
significant contribution to this upswing.
Through a detailed analysis of each of the 242 papers, the Islamic finance research has emanated from 280 institutions of 57
countries with 406 researchers. These papers have been cited 5183 times with a citations/download of 10.6%. The ranking of
authors, institutions and countries provides an insight on the impact makers in Islamic finance research. The findings from this
ranking suggests that Islamic finance research is not constrained by religious motivations or by geographically Muslim majority
countries and institutions. This suggests towards a global reach and acceptability of the discipline of Islamic finance.
Declaration of Competing Interest
None.
References
Abalala, T., Sollis, R., 2015. The saturday effect: an interesting anomaly in the Saudi stock market. Appl. Econ. 47 (58), 6317–6330.
Abdelsalam, O., Fethi, M.D., Matallín, J.C., Tortosa-Ausina, E., 2014. On the comparative performance of socially responsible and Islamic mutual funds. J. Econ.
Behav. Organ. 103, S108–S128.
Abdelsalam, O., Dimitropoulos, P., Elnahass, M., Leventis, S., 2016. Earnings management behaviors under different monitoring mechanisms: the case of Islamic and
conventional banks. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 132, 155–173.
Abdelsalam, O., Duygun, M., Matallín-Sáez, J.C., Tortosa-Ausina, E., 2017. Is ethical money sensitive to past returns? The case of portfolio constraints and persistence
in Islamic funds. J. Financ. Serv. Res. 51 (3), 363–384.
Abedifar, P., Hasan, I., Tarazi, A., 2016. Finance-growth nexus and dual-banking systems: relative importance of Islamic banks. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 132, 198–215.
Abuzayed, B., Al-Fayoumi, N.A., Molyneux, P., 2018. Diversification and bank stability in the GCC. J. Int. Financ. Mark. Inst. Money 57, 17–43.
Akhtar, S., Akhtar, F., Jahromi, M., John, K., 2017. Impact of interest rate surprises on Islamic and conventional stocks and bonds. J. Int. Money Financ. 79, 218–231.
Alandejani, M., Kutan, A.M., Samargandi, N., 2017. Do Islamic banks fail more than conventional banks? J. Int. Financ. Mark. Inst. Money 50, 135–155.
Alaoui, A.O., Dewandaru, G., Rosly, S.A., Masih, M., 2015. Linkages and co-movement between international stock market returns: case of Dow Jones Islamic Dubai
financial market index. J. Int. Financ. Mark. Inst. Money 36, 53–70.
Al-Awadhi, A.M., 2019. Deviation from religious trading norms. J. Behav. Exp. Financ. 22, 22–30.
Al-Awadhi, A.M., Dempsey, M., 2017. Social norms and market outcomes: the effects of religious beliefs on stock markets. J. Int. Financ. Mark. Inst. Money 50,
119–134.
Albaity, M., Mallek, R.S., Noman, A.H.M., 2019. Competition and bank stability in the MENA region: the moderating effect of Islamic versus conventional banks.
Emerg. Mark. Rev. 38, 310–325.
Alexakis, C., Pappas, V., Tsikouras, A., 2017. Hidden cointegration reveals hidden values in Islamic investments. J. Int. Financ. Mark. Inst. Money 46, 70–83.
Alexakis, C., Izzeldin, M., Johnes, J., Pappas, V., 2019. Performance and productivity in Islamic and conventional banks: evidence from the global financial crisis.
Econ. Model. 79, 1–14.
Alhomaidi, A., Hassan, M.K., Hippler, W.J., Mamun, A., 2019. The impact of religious certification on market segmentation and investor recognition. J. Corp. Finan.
55, 28–48.
Hassan, M.K., Aliyu, S., 2018. A contemporary survey of islamic banking literature. J. Financ. Stab. 34, 12–43.
Al-Khazali, O., Mirzaei, A., 2017. Stock market anomalies, market efficiency and the adaptive market hypothesis: evidence from Islamic stock indices. J. Int. Financ.
Mark. Inst. Money 51, 190–208.
Alkhazali, O.M., Zoubi, T.A., 2020. Gold and portfolio diversification: a stochastic dominance analysis of the Dow Jones Islamic indices. Pac. Basin Financ. J. 60,
101264.
Al-Khazali, O., Bouri, E., Roubaud, D., Zoubi, T., 2017. The impact of religious practice on stock returns and volatility. Int. Rev. Financ. Anal. 52, 172–189.
Almansour, A., 2019. Muslim investors and the capital market: the role of religious scholars. Pac. Basin Financ. J. 58, 101211.
Almansour, A., Ongena, S., 2018. Bank loan announcements and religious investors: empirical evidence from Saudi Arabia. J. Empir. Financ. 47, 78–89.
Aloui, C., Hammoudeh, S., Hamida, H.B., 2015. Co-movement between sharia stocks and Sukuk in the GCC markets: a time-frequency analysis. J. Int. Financ. Mark.
14
Inst. Money 34, 69–79.

Alqahtani, F., Boulanouar, Z., 2017. Sharia compliance status & investor demand for IPOs: evidence from Saudi Arabia. Pac. Basin Financ. J. 46, 258–268.
Alqahtani, F., Mayes, D.G., Brown, K., 2016. Economic turmoil and islamic banking: evidence from the Gulf cooperation council. Pac. Basin Financ. J. 39, 44–56.
Alzahrani, M., 2019. Islamic corporate finance, financial markets, and institutions: an overview. J. Corp. Finan. 55, 1–5.
Amrani, F., 2018. Sharing contracts’ marginalisation, adverse selection and markup calculation. World Econ. 41 (3), 738–751.
Ashraf, D., 2016. Does Shari’ah screening cause abnormal returns? Empirical evidence from Islamic equity indices. J. Bus. Ethics 134 (2), 209–228.
Ashraf, D., Felixson, K., Khawaja, M., Hussain, S.M., 2017. Do constraints on financial and operating leverage affect the performance of Islamic equity portfolios? Pac.
Basin Financ. J. 42, 171–182.
Athari, S.A., Adaoglu, C., Bektas, E., 2016. Investor protection and dividend policy: the case of Islamic and conventional banks. Emerg. Mark. Rev. 27, 100–117.
Aysan, A.F., Disli, M., 2019. Small business lending and credit risk: granger causality evidence. Econ. Model. 83, 245–255.
Aysan, A.F., Ozturk, H., 2018. Does Islamic banking offer a natural hedge for business cycles? Evidence from a dual banking system. J. Financ. Stab. 36, 22–38.
Aysan, A.F., Disli, M., Ng, A., Ozturk, H., 2016. Is small the new big? Islamic banking for SMEs in Turkey. Econ. Model. 54, 187–194.
Aysan, A.F., Disli, M., Duygun, M., Ozturk, H., 2017. Islamic banks, deposit insurance reform, and market discipline: evidence from a natural framework. J. Financ.
Serv. Res. 51 (2), 257–282.
Aysan, A.F., Disli, M., Duygun, M., Ozturk, H., 2018. Religiosity versus rationality: depositor behavior in Islamic and conventional banks. J. Comp. Econ. 46, 1–19.
Aysan, A.F., Disli, M., Ozturk, H., 2019. Bank lending channel in a dual banking system: why are Islamic banks so responsive? World Econ. 41, 674–698.
Azmat, S., Skully, M., Brown, K., 2015. Can Islamic banking ever become Islamic? Pac. Basin Financ. J. 34, 253–272.
Azmat, S., Skully, M., Brown, K., 2017. The (little) difference that makes all the difference between Islamic and conventional bonds. Pac. Basin Financ. J. 42, 46–59.
Azmi, W., Mohamad, S., Shah, M.E., 2018. Nonfinancial traits and financial smartness: international evidence from Shariah-compliant and socially responsible funds.
J. Int. Financ. Mark. Inst. Money 56, 201–217.
Azmi, W., Ali, M., Arshad, S., Rizvi, S.A.R., 2019a. Intricacies of competition, stability, and diversification: evidence from dual banking economies. Econ. Model. 83,
111–126.
Azmi, W., Mohamad, S., Shah, M.E., 2019b. Ethical investments and financial performance: an international evidence. Pac. Basin Financ. J. 101147.
Baele, L., Farooq, M., Ongena, S., 2014. Of religion and redemption: evidence from default on Islamic loans. J. Bank. Financ. 44, 141–159.
Balcılar, M., Demirer, R., Hammoudeh, S., 2015. Global risk exposures and industry diversification with Shariah-compliant equity sectors. Pac. Basin Financ. J. 35,
499–520.
Bashir, B.A., 1983. Portfolio management of Islamic banks:‘certainty model’. J. Bank. Financ. 7 (3), 339–354.
Beck, T., Ongena, S., Şendeniz-Yüncü, İ., 2019. Keep walking? Geographical proximity, religion, and relationship banking. J. Corp. Finan. 55, 49–68.
Belal, A.R., Abdelsalam, O., Nizamee, S.S., 2015. Ethical reporting in Islamic Bank Bangladesh limited (1983–2010). J. Bus. Ethics 129 (4), 769–784.
Belanès, A., Ftiti, Z., Regaïeg, R., 2015. What can we learn about Islamic banks efficiency under the subprime crisis? Evidence from GCC region. Pac. Basin Financ. J.
33, 81–92.
Berger, A.N., Boubakri, N., Guedhami, O., LI, X., 2019. Liquidity creation performance and financial stability consequences of Islamic banking: evidence from a
multinational study. J. Financ. Stab. 44, 100692.
Bitar, M., Hassan, M.K., Walker, T., 2017. Political systems and the financial soundness of Islamic banks. J. Financ. Stab. 31, 18–44.
Bitar, M., Hassan, M.K., Hippler, W.J., 2018. The determinants of Islamic bank capital decisions. Emerg. Mark. Rev. 35, 48–68.
Bollen, J., Van de Sompel, H., Smith, J.A., Luce, R., 2005. Toward alternative metrics of journal impact: a comparison of download and citation data. Inf. Process.
Manag. 41, 1419–1440.
Boo, Y.L., Ee, M.S., Li, B., Rashid, M., 2017. Islamic or conventional mutual funds: who has the upper hand? Evidence from Malaysia. Pac. Basin Financ. J. 42,
183–192.
Borokovich, K.A., Lee, A., Simkins, B.J., 2011. A framework for journal assessment: the case of the journal of banking & finance. J. Bank. Financ. 35 (1), 1–6.
Boudt, K., Raza, M.W., Ashraf, D., 2019a. Macro-financial regimes and performance of Shariah-compliant equity portfolios. J. Int. Financ. Mark. Inst. Money 60,
252–266.
Boudt, K., Raza, M.W., Wauters, M., 2019b. Evaluating the Shariah-compliance of equity portfolios: the weighting method matters. Int. Rev. Financ. Anal. 63,
406–417.
Chaffai, M., 2019. Hyperbolic distance function, technical efficiency and stability to shocks: a comparison between Islamic banks and conventional banks in MENA
region. Glob. Financ. J., 100485 Forthcoming.
Chaffai, M., Hassan, M.K., 2019. Technology gap and managerial efficiency: a comparison between Islamic and conventional banks in MENA. J. Prod. Anal. 51 (1),
39–53.
Chan, K.C., Chen, C.R., Lee, T., 2011. A long-term assessment of finance research performance among Asia-Pacific academic institutions. Pac. Basin Financ. J. 19,
157–171.
Chan, K.C., Chang, C.H., Chang, Y.C., 2013. Ranking of finance journals: some Google scholar citation perspectives. J. Empir. Financ. 21, 241–250.
Chaudry, A.S., Azmat, S., Sohail, M., 2018. State contingent and conventional banking: the optimal banking choice model. Econ. Model. 68, 167–177.
Chazi, A., Mirzaei, Zantout, Z. and Azad, A.S.M., 2020. Does the size of Islamic banking matter for industry growth: international evidence. Appl. Econ. 52 (4),
361–374 Forthcoming.
Coats, A.J.S., 2008. The top papers by download and citations from the international journal of cardiology in 2007. Int. J. Cardiol. 131, e1–e3.
Daher, H., Masih, M., Ibrahim, M., 2015. The unique risk exposures of Islamic banks’ capital buffers: a dynamic panel data analysis. J. Int. Financ. Mark. Inst. Money
36, 36–52.
Darrat, A.F., 1988. The Islamic interest-free banking system: some empirical evidence. Appl. Econ. 20 (3), 417–425.
Davis, P.M., Fromerth, M.J., 2007. Does the arXiv lead to higher citations and reduced publisher downloads for mathematics articles? Scientometrics 71 (2), 203–215.
Dewandaru, G., Masih, R., Bacha, O.I., Masih, A.M.M., 2015. Combining momentum, value, and quality for the Islamic equity portfolio: multi-style rotation strategies
using augmented black Litterman factor model. Pac. Basin Financ. J. 34, 205–232.
Dharani, M., Hassan, M.K., Paltrinieri, A., 2019. Faith-based norms and portfolio performance: evidence from India. Glob. Financ. J. 41, 79–89.
Doumpos, M., Hasan, I., Pasiouras, F., 2017. Bank overall financial strength: Islamic versus conventional banks. Econ. Model. 64, 513–523.
Ebrahim, M.S., Jaafar, A., Omar, F.A., Salleh, M.O., 2016. Can Islamic injunctions indemnify the structural flaws of securitized debt? J. Corp. Finan. 37, 271–286.
Egghe, L., 2006. Theory and practise of the g-index. Scientometrics 69 (1), 131–152.
Elamer, A.A., Ntim, C.G., Abdou, H.A., Pyke, C., 2019. Sharia supervisory boards, governance structures and operational risk disclosures: evidence from Islamic banks
in MENA countries. Glob. Financ. J. 100488.
El-Masry, A.A., de Mingo-López, D.V., Matallín-Sáez, J.C., Tortosa-Ausina, E., 2016. Environmental conditions, fund characteristics, and Islamic orientation: an
analysis of mutual fund performance for the MENA region. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 132, 174–197.
Elnahas, A.M., Hassan, M.K., Ismail, G.M., 2017. Religion and ratio analysis: towards an Islamic corporate liquidity measure. Emerg. Mark. Rev. 30, 42–65.
Fakhfekh, M., Hachicha, N., Jawadi, F., Selmi, N., Cheffou, A.I., 2016. Measuring volatility persistence for conventional and Islamic banks: an FI-EGARCH approach.
Emerg. Mark. Rev. 27, 84–99 (Ghosh, 2018).
Fianto, B.A., Gan, C., Hu, B., Roudaki, J., 2018. Equity financing and debt-based financing: evidence from Islamic microfinance institutions in Indonesia. Pac. Basin
Financ. J. 52, 163–172.
Ftiti, Z., Hadhri, S., 2019. Can economic policy uncertainty, oil prices, and investor sentiment predict Islamic stock returns? A multi-scale perspective. Pac. Basin
Financ. J. 53, 40–55.
Gad, S., Andrikopoulos, P., 2019. Diversification benefits of Shari’ah compliant equity ETFs in emerging markets. Pac. Basin Financ. J. 53, 133–144.
Gheeraert, L., 2014. Does Islamic finance spur banking sector development? J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 103, S4–S20.
Gheeraert, L., Weill, L., 2015. Does Islamic banking development favor macroeconomic efficiency? Evidence on the Islamic finance-growth nexus. Econ. Model. 47,
15
32–39.
Ghosh, S., 2018. Governance reforms and performance of MENA banks: are disclosures effective? Glob. Financ. J. 36, 78–95.
Godlewski, C.J., Turk-Ariss, R., Weill, L., 2016. Do the type of Sukuk and choice of shari’a scholar matter? J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 132, 63–76.
Gorraiz, J., Gumpenberger, C., Schlögl, C., 2014. Usage versus citation behaviours in four subject areas. Scientometrics 101, 1077–1095.
Grira, J., Hassan, M.K., Soumaré, I., 2016. Pricing beliefs: empirical evidence from the implied cost of deposit insurance for Islamic banks. Econ. Model. 55, 152–168.
Halim, Z.A., How, J., Verhoeven, P., 2017. Agency costs and corporate Sukuk issuance. Pac. Basin Financ. J. 42, 83–95.
Halim, Z.A., How, J., Verhoeven, P., Hassan, M.K., 2019. The value of certification in Islamic bond offerings. J. Corp. Finan. 55, 141–161.
Hamermesh, D.S., 2018. Citations in economics: measurement, uses, and impacts. J. Econ. Lit. 56 (1), 115–156.
Hammami, Y., 2019. Asset pricing in an Islamic economy. Appl. Econ. 1–17.
Hammami, Y., Oueslati, A., 2017. Measuring skill in the Islamic mutual fund industry: evidence from GCC countries. J. Int. Financ. Mark. Inst. Money 49, 15–31.
Hassan, K., Hoque, A., Gasbarro, D., 2019. Separating BRIC using Islamic stocks and crude oil: dynamic conditional correlation and volatility spillover analysis. Energy
Econ. 80, 950–969.
Hayat, R., Kraeussl, R., 2011. Risk and return characteristics of Islamic equity funds. Emerg. Mark. Rev. 12 (2), 189–203.
Caporale, G.M., Catik, A.N., Helmi, M.H., Ali, M., Tajik, M., 2020. The bank lending channel in the Malaysian Islamic and conventional banking system. Glob. Financ.
J. 45, 100478 Forthcoming.
Hernandez, J.A., Al-Yahyaee, K.H., Hammoudeh, S., Mensi, W., 2019. Tail dependence risk exposure and diversification potential of Islamic and conventional banks.
Appl. Econ. 51 (44), 4856–4869.
Hirsch, J.E., 2005. An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 102 (46), 16569–16572.
Hkiri, B., Hammoudeh, S., Aloui, C., Yarovaya, L., 2017. Are Islamic indexes a safe haven for investors? An analysis of total, directional and net volatility spillovers
between conventional and Islamic indexes and importance of crisis periods. Pac. Basin Financ. J. 43, 124–150.
S&P, 2020. Islamic Finance Outlook: 2020 Edition. https://www.spglobal.com/_assets/documents/ratings/research/islamic_finance_2020_screen.pdf.
Hutchinson, M.C., Mulcahy, M., O’Brien, J., 2018. What is the cost of faith? An empirical investigation of Islamic purification. Pac. Basin Financ. J. 52, 134–143.
Ibrahim, M.H., 2016. Business cycle and bank lending procyclicality in a dual banking system. Econ. Model. 55, 127–134.
Ibrahim, M.H., Alam, N., 2018. Islamic economics and Islamic finance in the world economy. World Econ. 41 (3), 668–673.
Ibrahim, M.H., Rizvi, S.A.R., 2018. Bank lending, deposits and risk-taking in times of crisis: a panel analysis of Islamic and conventional banks. Emerg. Mark. Rev. 35,
31–47.
IFSB, 2019. Islamic Financial Services Industry’s Stability Report 2019. Islamic Financial Services Board, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Imam, P., Kpodar, K., 2016. Islamic banking: good for growth? Econ. Model. 59, 387–401.
Imamah, N., Lin, T.J., Handayani, S.R., Hung, J.H., 2019. Islamic law, corporate governance, growth opportunities and dividend policy in Indonesia stock market. Pac.
Basin Financ. J. 55, 110–126.
Ismath Bacha, O., Mirakhor, A., 2018. Funding development infrastructure without leverage: A risk-sharing alternative using innovative Sukuk structures. World Econ.
41 (3), 752–762.
Jawadi, F., Jawadi, N., Cheffou, A.I., Ameur, H.B., Louhichi, W., 2017. Modelling the effect of the geographical environment on Islamic banking performance: A panel
quantile regression analysis. Econ. Model. 67, 300–306.
Jawadi, F., Jawadi, N., Cheffou, A.I., 2018. Uncertainty assessment in socially responsible and Islamic stock markets in the short and long terms: an ARDL approach.
Appl. Econ. 50 (39), 4286–4294.
Kabir, M.N., Worthington, A., 2017. The ‘competition–stability/fragility’ nexus: a comparative analysis of Islamic and conventional banks. Int. Rev. Financ. Anal. 50,
111–128.
Kabir, M.N., Worthington, A., Gupta, R., 2015. Comparative credit risk in Islamic and conventional bank. Pac. Basin Financ. J. 34, 327–353.
Kamil, N.K., Alhabshi, S.O., Bacha, O.I., Masih, M., 2014. Heads we win, tails you lose: is there equity in Islamic equity funds? Pac. Basin Financ. J. 28, 7–28.
Karsten, I., 1982. Islam and financial intermediation. IMF Staff. Pap. 29 (1), 108–142.
Kenourgios, D., Naifar, N., Dimitriou, D., 2016. Islamic financial markets and global crises: contagion or decoupling? Econ. Model. 57, 36–46.
Khan, M., 1986. Islamic interest-free banking: a theoretical analysis. IMF Staff. Pap. 33 (1), 1–27.
Kreiman, G., Maunsell, J.H.R., 2011. Nine criteria for a measure of scientific output. Front. Comput. Neurosci. 5, 48.
Kumru, C.S., Sarntisart, S., 2016. Banking for those unwilling to bank: implications of Islamic banking systems. Econ. Model. 54, 1–12.
Kuran, T., 2018. Islam and economic performance: historical and contemporary links. J. Econ. Lit. 56 (4), 1292–1359.
Lai, J., Rethel, L., Steiner, K., 2017. Conceptualizing dynamic challenges to global financial diffusion: Islamic finance and the grafting of Sukuk. Rev. Int. Polit. Econ.
24 (6), 958–979.
Lippi, G., Favaloro, E.J., 2013. Article downloads and citations: is there any relationship? Clin. Chim. Acta 415, 195.
Maghyereh, A.I., Abdoh, H., Awartani, B., 2019. Connectedness and hedging between gold and Islamic securities: a new evidence from time-frequency domain
approaches. Pac. Basin Financ. J. 54, 13–28.
Majdoub, J., Sassi, S.B., 2017. Volatility spillover and hedging effectiveness among China and emerging Asian Islamic equity indexes. Emerg. Mark. Rev. 31, 16–31.
Mazouz, K., Mohamed, A., Saadouni, B., 2016. Stock return comovement around the Dow Jones Islamic market world index revisions. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 132,
50–62.
Mensi, W., Hammoudeh, S., Reboredo, J.C., Nguyen, D.K., 2015. Are sharia stocks, gold and US Treasury hedges and/or safe havens for the oil-based GCC markets?
Mensi, W., Hammoudeh, S., Tiwari, A.K., 2016. New evidence on hedges and safe havens for gulf stock markets using the wavelet-based quantile. Emerg. Mark. Rev.
28, 155–183.
Mensi, W., Hammoudeh, S., Sensoy, A., Yoon, S.M., 2017. Analysing dynamic linkages and hedging strategies between Islamic and conventional sector equity indexes.
Appl. Econ. 49 (25), 2456–2479.
Merdad, H.J., Hassan, M.K., Hippler III, W.J., 2015. The Islamic risk factor in expected stock returns: an empirical study in Saudi Arabia. Pac. Basin Financ. J. 34,
293–314.
Meslier, C., Risfandy, T., Tarazi, A., 2017. Dual market competition and deposit rate setting in Islamic and conventional banks. Econ. Model. 63, 318–333.
Mimouni, K., Smaoui, H., Temimi, A., 2019. The impact of Sukuk on the performance of conventional and Islamic banks. Pac. Basin Financ. J. 54, 42–54.
Minhat, M., Dzolkarnaini, N., 2017. Which firms use Islamic financing? Econ. Lett. 150, 15–17.
Moed, H.F., 2005. Statistical relationships between downloads and citations at the level of individual documents within a single journal. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol.
56 (10), 1088–1097.
Mwamba, J.W.M., Hammoudeh, S., Gupta, R., 2017. Financial tail risks in conventional and Islamic stock markets: a comparative analysis. Pac. Basin Financ. J. 42,
60–82.
Nagano, M., 2017. Sukuk issuance and information asymmetry: why do firms issue Sukuk? Pac. Basin Financ. J. 42, 142–157.
Nagayev, R., Disli, M., Inghelbrecht, K., Ng, A., 2016. On the dynamic links between commodities and Islamic equity. Energy Econ. 58, 125–140.
Naifar, N., Hammoudeh, S., 2016. Do global financial distress and uncertainties impact GCC and global Sukuk return dynamics? Pac. Basin Financ. J. 39, 57–69.
Naifar, N., Mroua, M., Bahloul, S., 2017. Do regional and global uncertainty factors affect differently the conventional bonds and Sukuk? New evidence. Pac. Basin
Financ. J. 41, 65–74.
Nainggolan, Y., How, J., Verhoeven, P., 2016. Ethical screening and financial performance: the case of Islamic equity funds. J. Bus. Ethics 137 (1), 83–99.
Naqvi, B., Rizvi, S.K.A., Mirza, N., Reddy, K., 2018a. Religion based investing and illusion of Islamic alpha and beta. Pac. Basin Financ. J. 52, 82–106.
Naqvi, B., Rizvi, S.K., Uqailli, A., Chaudhry, S.M., 2018b. What enables Islamic banks to contribute in global financial reintermediation? Pac. Basin Financ. J. 52, 5–25.
Narayan, P.K., Bannigidadmath, D., 2017. Does financial news predict stock returns? New evidence from Islamic and non-Islamic stocks. Pac. Basin Financ. J. 42,
24–45.
16
Narayan, P.K., Phan, D.H.B., 2017. Momentum strategies for Islamic stocks. Pac. Basin Financ. J. 42, 96–112.
Narayan, P.K., Phan, D.H.B., 2019. A survey of Islamic banking and finance literature: issues, challenges and future directions. Pac. Basin Financ. J. 53, 484–496.
Narayan, P.K., Phan, D.H.B., Sharma, S.S., Westerlund, J., 2016a. Are Islamic stock returns predictable? A global perspective. Pac. Basin Financ. J. 40, 210–223.
Narayan, P.K., Phan, D.H.B., Thuraisamy, K., Westerlund, J., 2016b. Price discovery and asset pricing. Pac. Basin Financ. J. 40, 224–235.
Narayan, P.K., Narayan, S., Phan, D.H.B., Thuraisamy, K.S., Tran, V.T., 2017. Credit quality implied momentum profits for Islamic stocks. Pac. Basin Financ. J. 42,
11–23.
Narayan, P.K., Phan, D.H.B., Sharma, S.S., 2019. Does Islamic stock sensitivity to oil prices have economic significance? Pac. Basin Financ. J. 53, 497–512.
Nasr, A.B., Lux, T., Ajmi, A.N., Gupta, R., 2016. Forecasting the volatility of the Dow Jones Islamic stock market index: long memory vs. regime switching. Int. Rev.
Econ. Financ. 45, 559–571.
Naz, I., Shah, S.M.A., Kutan, A., 2017. Do managers of sharia-compliant firms have distinctive financial styles? J. Int. Financ. Mark. Inst. Money 46, 174–187.
Nazlioglu, S., Hammoudeh, S., Gupta, R., 2015. Volatility transmission between Islamic and conventional equity markets: evidence from causality-in-variance test.
Appl. Econ. 47 (46), 4996–5011.
Nieder, C., Dalhaug, A., Aandahl, G., 2013. Correlation between article download and citation figures for highly accessed articles from five open access oncology
journals. SpringerPlus 2 (1), 1–5.
O’Leary, D., 2008. On the relationship between citations and appearances on “top 25” download lists in the international journal of accounting information systems.
Int. J. Account. Inf. Syst. 9 (1), 61–75.
Omri, A., Soussou, K., Ben Sedrine Goucha, N., 2019. On the post-financial crisis performance of Islamic mutual funds: the case of Riyad funds. Appl. Econ. 51 (18),
1929–1946.
Önder, Y.K., 2016. Asset backed contracts and sovereign risk. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 132, 237–252.
Opthof, T., 2011. Differences in citation frequency of clinical and basic science papers in cardiovascular research. Med. Biol. Eng. Comput. 49 (6), 613–621.
Othman, N., Abdul-Majid, M., Abdul-Rahman, A., 2017. Partnership financing and bank efficiency. Pac. Basin Financ. J. 46, 1–13.
Pappas, V., Ongena, S., Izzeldin, M., Fuertes, A.M., 2017. A survival analysis of Islamic and conventional banks. J. Financ. Serv. Res. 51 (2), 221–256.
Pepinsky, T.B., 2013. Development, social change, and Islamic finance in contemporary Indonesia. World Dev. 41, 157–167.
Perneger, T.V., 2004. Relation between online “hit counts” and subsequent citations: prospective study of research papers in the BMJ. Br. Med. J. 329 (7465), 546–547.
Platonova, E., Asutay, M., Dixon, R., Mohammad, S., 2016. The impact of corporate social responsibility disclosure on financial performance: evidence from the GCC
Islamic banking sector. J. Bus. Ethics 1–21.
Rahim, A.M., Masih, M., 2016. Portfolio diversification benefits of Islamic investors with their major trading partners: evidence from Malaysia based on MGARCH-DCC
and wavelet approaches. Econ. Model. 54, 425–438.
Raza, M.W., Ashraf, D., 2019. Does the application of smart beta strategies enhance portfolio performance? The case of Islamic equity investments. Int. Rev. Econ.
Financ. 60, 46–61.
Reddy, K., Mirza, N., Naqvi, B., Fu, M., 2017. Comparative risk adjusted performance of Islamic, socially responsible and conventional funds: evidence from United
Kingdom. Econ. Model. 66, 233–243.
Rizvi, S.A.R., Arshad, S., 2018a. Stabilising economic growth through risk sharing macro instruments. World Econ. 41 (3), 781–800.
Rizvi, S.A.R., Arshad, S., 2018c. Understanding time-varying systematic risks in Islamic and conventional sectoral indices. Econ. Model. 70, 561–570.
Rizvi, S.A.R., Arshad, S., Alam, N., 2015. Crises and contagion in Asia Pacific—Islamic v/s conventional markets. Pac. Basin Financ. J. 34, 315–326.
Rizvi, S.A.R., Narayan, P.K., Sakti, A., Syraffudin, F., 2019. Role of Islamic banks in Indonesian banking industry: an empirical exploration. Pac. Basin Financ. J. 62,
101117 Forthcoming.
Sabah, N., Hassan, M.K., 2019. Pricing of Islamic deposit insurance. Econ. Lett. 178, 91–94.
Saeed, M., Izzeldin, M., 2016. Examining the relationship between default risk and efficiency in Islamic and conventional banks. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 132, 127–154.
Safiullah, M., Shamsuddin, A., 2019a. Asset pricing factors in Islamic equity returns. Int. Rev. Financ.
Safiullah, M., Shamsuddin, A., 2019b. Risk-adjusted efficiency and corporate governance: evidence from Islamic and conventional banks. J. Corp. Finan. 55, 105–140.
Schloegl, C., Gorraiz, J., 2011. Global usage versus global citation metrics: the case of pharmacology journals. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 62 (1), 161–170.
Sensoy, A., 2016. Systematic risk in conventional and Islamic equity markets. Int. Rev. Financ. 16 (3), 457–466.
Shaban, M., Duygun, M., Fry, J., 2016. SME’s lending and Islamic finance. Is it a “win–win” situation? Econ. Model. 55, 1–5.
Shafron, E., 2019. Investor tastes: implications for asset pricing in the public debt market. J. Corp. Finan. 55, 6–27.
Shahzad, S.J.H., Ferrer, R., Ballester, L., Umar, Z., 2017. Risk transmission between Islamic and conventional stock markets: a return and volatility spillover analysis.
Int. Rev. Financ. Anal. 52, 9–26.
Shahzad, S.J.H., Mensi, W., Hammoudeh, S., Rehman, M.U., Al-Yahyaee, K.H., 2018. Extreme dependence and risk spillovers between oil and Islamic stock markets.
Smaoui, H., Mimouni, K., Temimi, A., 2017. Sukuk, banking system, and financial markets: rivals or complements? Econ. Lett. 161, 62–65.
Solarin, S.A., Hammoudeh, S., Shahbaz, M., 2018. Influence of economic factors on disaggregated Islamic banking deposits: evidence with structural breaks in
Malaysia. J. Int. Financ. Mark. Inst. Money 55, 13–28.
Sorwar, G., Pappas, V., Pereira, J., Nurullah, M., 2016. To debt or not to debt: are Islamic banks less risky than conventional banks? J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 132,
113–126 Sun et al. (2017).
Stavroyiannis, S., Babalos, V., 2017. Herding, faith-based investments and the global financial crisis: empirical evidence from static and dynamic models. J. Behav.
Financ. 18 (4), 478–489.
Sukmana, R., Ibrahim, M.H., 2017. How Islamic are Islamic banks? A non-linear assessment of Islamic rate–conventional rate relations. Econ. Model. 64, 443–448.
Trinh, V.Q., Elnahass, M., Salama, A., Izzeldin, M., 2020. Board busyness, performance and financial stability: does bank type matter? Eur. J. Financ. 26 (7–8),
774–801.
Umar, Z., 2017. Islamic vs conventional equities in a strategic asset allocation framework. Pac. Basin Financ. J. 42, 1–10.
Umar, Z., Shahzad, S.J.H., Ferrer, R., Jareño, F., 2018. Does Shariah compliance make interest rate sensitivity of Islamic equities lower? An industry level analysis
under different market states. Appl. Econ. 50 (42), 4500–4521.
Wan, J.K., Hua, P.H., Rousseau, R., Sun, X.K., 2010. The download immediacy index (DII): experiences using the CNKI full-text database. Scientometrics 82 (3),
555–566.
Wanke, P., Azad, M.A.K., Barros, C.P., 2016. Financial distress and the Malaysian dual baking system: a dynamic slacks approach. J. Bank. Financ. 66, 1–18.
Warsame, M.H., Ireri, E.M., 2016b. Does the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB).
Watson, A.B., 2009. Comparing citations and downloads for individual articles. J. Vis. 9 (4), 1–4.
Wong, C.Y., Eng, Y.K., 2018. Is optimal Islamic financial contract stabilizing? The perspective of a new Keynesian model with the financial accelerator. Econ. Model.
71, 121–133.
Xue-li, L., Hong-ling, F., Mei-ying, W., 2011. Correlation between download and citation and download-citation deviation phenomenon for some papers in Chinese
medical journals. Ser. Rev. 37 (3), 157–161.
Yanikkaya, H., Gumus, N., Pabuccu, Y.U., 2018. How profitability differs between conventional and Islamic banks: a dynamic panel data approach. Pac. Basin Financ.
J. 48, 99–111.
Yilmaz, M.K., Sensoy, A., Ozturk, K., Hacihasanoglu, E., 2015. Cross-sectoral interactions in Islamic equity markets. Pac. Basin Financ. J. 32, 1–20.
Yousefi, M., Abizadeh, S., McCormick, K., 1997. Monetary stability and interest-free banking: the case of Iran. Appl. Econ. 29 (7), 869–876.
Zaman, Q.U., Hassan, M.K., Akhter, W., Meraj, M.A., 2018. From interest tax shield to dividend tax shield: a corporate financing policy for equitable and sustainable
wealth creation. Pac. Basin Financ. J. 52, 144–162.
Zins, A., Weill, L., 2017. Islamic banking and risk: the impact of Basel II. Econ. Model. 64, 626–637.
17

A Survey of Islamic Finance Research - Influences and Influencers

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Survey of Islamic Finance Research - Influences and Influencers

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pacific-Basin Finance Journal xxx (xxxx) xxxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Pacific-Basin Finance Journal

A survey of Islamic finance research – Influences and influencers

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

all themes in Islamic finance.

2.1. Islamic banks

1 Marwan Izzeldin 4 605 180 45.00 15.94 29.8% 26.6%

2.2. Influencers in Islamic banking research

1 Lancaster University 5 881 285 57.00 13.50 32.35% 30.2%

1 Joakim Westerlund 4 195 77 19.25 6.13 39.5% 41.2%

2.4. Influencers in Islamic equities research

1 Deakin University 12 1450 540 45.00 8.49 37.24% 36.78%

2.5. Sukuk (Islamic bonds)

2.6. Influencers in Sukuk (Islamic bonds) research

2.7. Theoretical studies

1 Christophe J. Godlewski 2 326 93 46.50 13.50 28.5% 23.1%

1 University of Strasbourg 3 777 113 37.67 9.04 14.54% 12.18%

2.8. Influencers in theoretical Islamic finance research

1 Timur Kuran 1 169 46 46.00 2300.0% 27.2% 27.2%

1 Duke University 1.00 169 46 46.00 23.00 27.22% 27.22%

1 Mohamed Eskandar Shah 2 55 5 2.50 1.75 9.1% 10.3%

2.10. Influencers in Islamic funds research

2.11. Overall author and institutions ranking

1 INCEIF 2 165 15 7.50 1.75 9.09% 10.26%

1 Deakin University 18 1269 321 17.83 8.57 25.30% 22.13% 23.69%

1 Australia 43 13,268 1996 46.42 8.53 15.04% 15.63% 15.16%

3. Research gaps and future direction

Declaration of Competing Interest

Inst. Money 34, 69–79.

You might also like