Cited by 23Agricultural Innovations and PracticesAgricultural Development and ManagementICT in Developing Communities

Peer learning and technology adoption in a digital farmer-to-farmer network

Open access
Lasdun, Violet, Harou, Aurélie P., Magomba, Chris, Guereña, Davíd·2025·Journal of Development Economics

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jdeveco.2025.103496

Cites

99 of 99 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 7

  1. Bandura, A. (2006). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. Self-efficacy beliefs of ado- lescents 5(1): 307-337.
  2. Bawden, D., Holtham, C., and Courtney, N. (1999). Perspectives on information overload. In Aslib proceedings. MCB UP Ltd.
  3. Berazneva, J., and Güereña, D. (2019). Soil Management for Smallholders. Choices, 34(2), 1-8.
  4. Bernard, T., Abate, G. T., Makhija, S., and Spielman, D. J. (2019). Accelerating technical change through video-mediated agricultural extension: evidence from Ethiopia (Vol. 1851).
  5. Cole, S. A., and Fernando, A. N. (2021). 'Mobile'izing Agricultural Advice Technology Adoption Diffusion and Sustainability. The Economic Journal, 131(633), 192-219.
  6. Feltz, D. L., and Lirgg, C. D. (2001). Self-efficacy beliefs of athletes, teams, and coaches. Handbook of Sport Psychology, 2(2001), 340-61.
  7. Sanginga, N., and Woomer, P. L. (Eds.). (2009). Integrated soil fertility management in Africa: principles, practices, and developmental process. CIAT.

Authors
Lasdun, V., Harou, A. P., Magomba, C., & Guereña, D.
Affiliations
  • London School of Economics and Political Science (GB)
  • McGill University (CA)
Corresponding author
Harou, Aurélie P.
Venue
Journal of Development Economics
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2025-09
Volume
176
Pages
103496
ISSN
0304-3878 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4408746791
Cited by
23
References
99
Citations by year
2026: 17 · 2025: 6
FWCI
40.46
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Development Economics (publishedVersion)
  • London School of Economics and Political Science Research Online (London School of Economics and Political Science) (submittedVersion)
  • London School of Economics and Political Science Theses Online (London School of Economics and Political Science) (submittedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • McGill University (16-0619)
  • Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (430-2018-1121)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › General Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agricultural Innovations and Practices
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › General Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agricultural Development and Management
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › ICT in Developing Communities
Keywords
peer learning, agricultural technology adoption, smallholder farmers, intercropping, organic fertilizer production, user engagement, information constraints

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review