Publication activity
Articles grouped by publication year
Hover over a year or focus the chart and use arrow keys to inspect values.
2026 is year to date. 0 undated publications excluded.
Research across participating journals · All insights follow your collection filters.
Publication activity alongside incoming citations.
Articles grouped by publication year
Hover over a year or focus the chart and use arrow keys to inspect values.
2026 is year to date. 0 undated publications excluded.
OpenAlex · year of the citing work
Hover over a year or focus the chart and use arrow keys to inspect values.
2017–2026 annual-history window. 2026 is year to date. Unknown years have gaps.
Leading affiliations and themes in this collection.
Full distributions & methodology ↓Independent sources. Clear time scales.
Crossref and OpenAlex · separate totals for the same publication cohorts
Hover over a year or focus the chart and use arrow keys to inspect values.
Latest lifetime totals, grouped by the cited article’s year. These are not citations received in that year.
OpenAlex · incoming citation links grouped by citing-work year
Hover over a year or focus the chart and use arrow keys to inspect values.
2017–2026 annual-history window. 2026 is year to date. Unknown years have gaps.
Select journals to compare the same collection filters. Source totals stay separate. These measures describe research activity, not journal quality.
Articles by publication year
Latest lifetime totals · grouped by publication year
Latest lifetime totals · grouped by publication year
By year of the citing work · 2017–2026
2026 is year to date. Crossref and OpenAlex lifetime charts share a citation scale. Unknown observations appear as gaps; known zero stays zero. Annual receipts use available OpenAlex histories and may not sum to lifetime totals. 0 undated publications excluded from publication-year charts.
Crossref citation coverage: 3 / 3 publications (100.0%). Latest observation: 21 Oct 2026, 00:21 UTC. Means and percentages use records with known counts.
DOI-matched OpenAlex observations for the same selected publications. These counts are separate from Crossref and are never added together.
Observation range: 27 Oct 2026 19:04 UTC — 29 Oct 2026 16:12 UTC. Missing matches are not zero citations. Previous observations may remain if a refresh fails or a DOI no longer matches.
OpenAlex affiliations and primary-topic classification. Each publication counts once per institution or country; multi-affiliated publications appear in multiple groups, so percentages can sum above 100%. Countries describe author affiliations, not nationality. Topics use one primary topic per publication.
3 / 3 with data · 0 missing or unmatched. Percentages use all 3 selected publications.
3 / 3 with data · 0 missing or unmatched. Percentages use all 3 selected publications.
3 / 3 with data · 0 missing or unmatched. Percentages use all 3 selected publications.
Citations are the latest recorded totals for articles published in each year, not citations received during that year. Crossref and OpenAlex remain separate and share the same citation scale. 2026 is incomplete; newer articles have had less time to receive citations.
0 undated publications excluded. Unknown citation counts are shown as —, never as zero. Partial coverage can understate totals; expand each table for known / total records.
| Publication year | Journal / scope | Publications | Publications | Crossref known | OpenAlex known |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2021 | All selected publications | 3 | 3 | 3/3 | 3/3 |
| Publication year | Journal / scope | Crossref citations | Publications | Crossref known | OpenAlex known |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2021 | All selected publications | 2 | 3 | 3/3 | 3/3 |
| Publication year | Journal / scope | OpenAlex citations | Publications | Crossref known | OpenAlex known |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2021 | All selected publications | 4 | 3 | 3/3 | 3/3 |
Incoming citations to the selected publications, grouped by the year of the citing work. This is separate from lifetime citation totals grouped by the cited article’s publication year.
The publication filters above define which articles receive the citations. The citation-year range below only controls this chart and the incoming-citation comparison. Removing publication-year filters includes older articles’ incoming citations too.
Annual history available for 3 / 3 selected publications. Supported display window: 2017–2026; 2026 is incomplete. Within a successfully fetched ten-year window, omitted years mean zero. Missing histories and years beyond a saved observation’s window remain unknown (—); partial coverage can understate totals.
Annual-history observations (UTC): 2026-10-27T19:04:58.347813+00:00 — 2026-10-29T16:12:41.332362+00:00. Older observations may be retained after failed or incomplete refreshes.
| Citation year | Journal / scope | OpenAlex · Citations received by year | Publications | Annual history known |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2017 | All selected publications | 0 | 3 | 3/3 |
| 2018 | All selected publications | 0 | 3 | 3/3 |
| 2019 | All selected publications | 0 | 3 | 3/3 |
| 2020 | All selected publications | 0 | 3 | 3/3 |
| 2021 | All selected publications | 0 | 3 | 3/3 |
| 2022 | All selected publications | 1 | 3 | 3/3 |
| 2023 | All selected publications | 1 | 3 | 3/3 |
| 2024 | All selected publications | 0 | 3 | 3/3 |
| 2025 | All selected publications | 0 | 3 | 3/3 |
| 2026 | All selected publications | 2 | 3 | 3/3 |
Counts represent citation links, not unique citing papers across a journal: one paper citing two selected articles contributes two links. Older citations outside this window are excluded, so annual sums need not equal lifetime totals. OpenAlex methodology ↗
Publications by publication year. 2026 is an incomplete year.
| Period | Publications |
|---|---|
| 2021 | 3 |
Latest Crossref totals for the selected publications; not citations received in the selected years.
Unknown counts are excluded from the mean, median and cited-publication rate.
Same filters, source and counting rules across journals. Descriptive statistics, not a quality ranking.
| Journal / publisher | Publications | Crossref citations | OpenAlex citations | OpenAlex coverage | Crossref mean | Crossref median | Crossref cited %* | Crossref coverage |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| International Journal of Finance & Banking Studies SSBFNET | 3 | 2 | 4 | 3/3 | 0.67 | 1 | 66.7 | 3/3 · 100.0% |
* Percentage among publications with a known citation count.
The purpose of this paper is two folds: (i) obtain the overall technical efficiencies (TE), pure technical efficiencies (PTE), and scale efficiencies of the Islamic bank of the nine South and Southeast Asian (SSEA) countries during 2011-2016. (ii) compare them among the Islamic banks of the SSEA. The paper applied the Bootstrap Data Envelope Analysis (DEA) for obtaining three efficiencies in the production of loan and earning assets and found that the average TE, PTE, and SE of the Islamic banks in the region were 77.3 percent, 81.2 percent, and 95.3 percent respectively. The comparison of PTE efficiencies across the Islamic banks found: (i) the average TE of the Islamic banks of Malaysia was 81.9 percent and was higher than the average of other countries in the region; (ii) the average managerial efficiency (PTE) of the Islamic banks of Malaysia, excluding Brunei, Singapore, and Thailand, was 87.0 percent and was higher than the average of other countries in the region; (iii) among countries of the South and Southeast Asia, excluding Singapore and Maldives, the Islamic banks of Pakistan were more scale efficient than other countries in the region. The average scale efficiency of Pakistan’s Islamic banks was 96.8 percent. The underlying reason for the Islamic banks of Malaysia and Pakistan most efficient in the region is because they were the forerunners. They were the first countries to introduce Islamic banks. Secondly, the banks of counties survived through competition with conventional banks operating side by side in the Islamic banks. The policy prescription suggests that bank regulators allow the opening of more Islamic banks to compete with conventional banks for improving PTE efficiency.
We examine the security and firm characteristics of a sample of 2,027 non-convertible investment grade floating rate securities (bonds) issued by the US based firms between 1980 and 2018. These bonds pay a coupon based on short term reference rate, such as fed funds rate, plus a fixed quoted margin. Considerable number (81.6%) of these issues are between 1992 and 2007 signifying floating rate as an effective mechanism to mitigate firm’s interest rate risk when the rates are high and expected to fall. A positive and significant abnormal return (CAR = 0.27%), in the event window surrounding issue date, provides strong evidence that the floating rate is viewed as a less restrictive provision as compared to the call option. Majority of the issues (89.3%) are non-callable since the floating rate mitigates interest rate risk for the issuing firm. Lack of put provision in these bonds (in only 7.35% of the sample issues) signifies no significant investor concerns of falling bond prices. Regression analysis reveals that firms with growth options and with higher leverage experience positive CAR due to the financial flexibility these bonds provide. Firms with higher level of information asymmetry benefits less from issuing these securities since most of these bonds (90.13%) are issued at par therefore, the price is not likely to carry information content that mitigates information asymmetry between the firms and the investors.
This paper describes how behavioral biases influence the resolution of financial covenant violations. Prior literature documents that violation waivers are common; however, there is a lack of discussion on the determinants that lead loan officers to waive covenant violations. We rely on the escalation of commitment bias (or the sunk cost phenomenon) to discuss how loan officers may become attached to a selected course of action and fail to incorporate new information, increasing the likelihood of covenant waivers. We explain the implications of this bias on bank financial reports by detailing how accounting links loan quality to bank financial statements. We further draw on the psychology literature to offer potential solutions to mitigate overcommitment in the context of loan officers. Future research can examine the extent to which loan officers knowingly or unknowingly steer away from rational decision-making. This study has practical implications as users of bank financial reports, including investors, auditors, examiners, and bank managers, learn about processes and challenges on how accounting mechanics link bank loan portfolios to financial statements.
We examine the security and firm characteristics of a sample of 2,027 non-convertible investment grade floating rate securities (bonds) issued by the US based firms between 1980 and 2018. These bonds pay a coupon based on short term reference rate, such as fed funds rate, plus a fixed quoted margin. Considerable number (81.6%) of these issues are between 1992 and 2007 signifying floating rate as an effective mechanism to mitigate firm’s interest rate risk when the rates are high and expected to fall. A positive and significant abnormal return (CAR = 0.27%), in the event window surrounding issue date, provides strong evidence that the floating rate is viewed as a less restrictive provision as compared to the call option. Majority of the issues (89.3%) are non-callable since the floating rate mitigates interest rate risk for the issuing firm. Lack of put provision in these bonds (in only 7.35% of the sample issues) signifies no significant investor concerns of falling bond prices. Regression analysis reveals that firms with growth options and with higher leverage experience positive CAR due to the financial flexibility these bonds provide. Firms with higher level of information asymmetry benefits less from issuing these securities since most of these bonds (90.13%) are issued at par therefore, the price is not likely to carry information content that mitigates information asymmetry between the firms and the investors.
This paper describes how behavioral biases influence the resolution of financial covenant violations. Prior literature documents that violation waivers are common; however, there is a lack of discussion on the determinants that lead loan officers to waive covenant violations. We rely on the escalation of commitment bias (or the sunk cost phenomenon) to discuss how loan officers may become attached to a selected course of action and fail to incorporate new information, increasing the likelihood of covenant waivers. We explain the implications of this bias on bank financial reports by detailing how accounting links loan quality to bank financial statements. We further draw on the psychology literature to offer potential solutions to mitigate overcommitment in the context of loan officers. Future research can examine the extent to which loan officers knowingly or unknowingly steer away from rational decision-making. This study has practical implications as users of bank financial reports, including investors, auditors, examiners, and bank managers, learn about processes and challenges on how accounting mechanics link bank loan portfolios to financial statements.
The purpose of this paper is two folds: (i) obtain the overall technical efficiencies (TE), pure technical efficiencies (PTE), and scale efficiencies of the Islamic bank of the nine South and Southeast Asian (SSEA) countries during 2011-2016. (ii) compare them among the Islamic banks of the SSEA. The paper applied the Bootstrap Data Envelope Analysis (DEA) for obtaining three efficiencies in the production of loan and earning assets and found that the average TE, PTE, and SE of the Islamic banks in the region were 77.3 percent, 81.2 percent, and 95.3 percent respectively. The comparison of PTE efficiencies across the Islamic banks found: (i) the average TE of the Islamic banks of Malaysia was 81.9 percent and was higher than the average of other countries in the region; (ii) the average managerial efficiency (PTE) of the Islamic banks of Malaysia, excluding Brunei, Singapore, and Thailand, was 87.0 percent and was higher than the average of other countries in the region; (iii) among countries of the South and Southeast Asia, excluding Singapore and Maldives, the Islamic banks of Pakistan were more scale efficient than other countries in the region. The average scale efficiency of Pakistan’s Islamic banks was 96.8 percent. The underlying reason for the Islamic banks of Malaysia and Pakistan most efficient in the region is because they were the forerunners. They were the first countries to introduce Islamic banks. Secondly, the banks of counties survived through competition with conventional banks operating side by side in the Islamic banks. The policy prescription suggests that bank regulators allow the opening of more Islamic banks to compete with conventional banks for improving PTE efficiency.
Source coverage refers to this result set; a publication may occur in several sources. Sync times refer to contributing journals.
Missing abstracts: 0 · Missing authors: 0 · Missing publication dates: 0 · Dates without day precision: 0
| Source | Most recent successful journal sync | Latest attempt |
|---|---|---|
| crossref | 21 Oct 2026 00:21 UTC · ijfbs | complete · ijfbs · 21 Oct 2026 00:21 UTC |
| ojs-rest | 21 Oct 2026 00:21 UTC · ijfbs | complete · ijfbs · 21 Oct 2026 00:14 UTC |
| oai-pmh | 20 Oct 2026 19:56 UTC · ijfbs | complete · ijfbs · 20 Oct 2026 19:55 UTC |
| openalex-enrichment | 21 Oct 2026 00:22 UTC · ijfbs | complete · ijfbs · 21 Oct 2026 00:21 UTC |