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: 0 / 4 publications (0.0%). Latest observation: Not yet available. 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 19:40 UTC — 29 Oct 2026 16:53 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.
4 / 4 with data · 0 missing or unmatched. Percentages use all 4 selected publications.
4 / 4 with data · 0 missing or unmatched. Percentages use all 4 selected publications.
4 / 4 with data · 0 missing or unmatched. Percentages use all 4 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026 | All selected publications | 4 | 4 | 0/4 | 4/4 |
| Publication year | Journal / scope | Crossref citations | Publications | Crossref known | OpenAlex known |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026 | All selected publications | — | 4 | 0/4 | 4/4 |
| Publication year | Journal / scope | OpenAlex citations | Publications | Crossref known | OpenAlex known |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026 | All selected publications | 0 | 4 | 0/4 | 4/4 |
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 4 / 4 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): 2026-10-27T19:40:25.203233+00:00 — 2026-10-29T16:53:03.747582+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 | 4 | 4/4 |
| 2018 | All selected publications | 0 | 4 | 4/4 |
| 2019 | All selected publications | 0 | 4 | 4/4 |
| 2020 | All selected publications | 0 | 4 | 4/4 |
| 2021 | All selected publications | 0 | 4 | 4/4 |
| 2022 | All selected publications | 0 | 4 | 4/4 |
| 2023 | All selected publications | 0 | 4 | 4/4 |
| 2024 | All selected publications | 0 | 4 | 4/4 |
| 2025 | All selected publications | 0 | 4 | 4/4 |
| 2026 | All selected publications | 0 | 4 | 4/4 |
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 |
|---|---|
| 2026 | 4 |
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 | 4 | — | 0 | 4/4 | — | — | — | 0/4 · 0.0% |
* Percentage among publications with a known citation count.
Maintaining adequate liquidity while preserving profitability remains a central challenge for commercial banks because liquid assets strengthen resilience but typically generate lower returns than loans and other earning assets. This study investigates the effect of liquidity on the profitability of U.S. commercial banks using 8,000 quarterly bank observations for 2010–2024. Profitability is measured by return on assets (ROA), with return on equity (ROE) used for robustness, while liquidity, capital adequacy, the loan-to-asset ratio, and bank size are modeled as explanatory variables. Pooled OLS, fixed-effects, and random-effects estimators are compared, and diagnostic tests support a two-way fixed-effects model with standard errors clustered by bank and quarter. The preferred estimates show that a one-percentage-point increase in the liquidity ratio reduces annualized ROA by 0.0183 percentage points (SE = 0.0031; p < 0.001). A one-standard-deviation rise in liquidity, equal to 5.52 percentage points, lowers ROA by approximately 0.101 percentage points, representing 9.2% of the sample mean ROA of 1.097%. Capital adequacy increases ROA by 0.0530 percentage points, and the loan-to-asset ratio increases it by 0.0148 percentage points, both at p < 0.001, whereas bank size is insignificant (β = 0.1008; p = 0.352). The ROE robustness model also yields a negative liquidity coefficient of −0.1074 (p < 0.001). The findings confirm a measurable liquidity–profitability trade-off and support risk-sensitive liquidity regulation that protects financial stability without encouraging persistently excessive holdings of low-yield liquid assets.
This study examines how first-generation immigrants in the United States plan for retirement, report income, and engage with the Social Security system. The analysis combines an original anonymous survey of 120 first-generation immigrants with descriptive, correlational, and illustrative aggregate evidence constructed from Social Security Administration, Census Bureau, and related institutional data for 2013–2023. The survey results show three consistent patterns. First, retirement knowledge is limited: most respondents do not understand how Social Security benefits are calculated, yet a large majority would attend retirement-planning workshops. Second, financial behavior is shaped by legal status and labor-market formality. Tax filing rates are high overall, but underreporting incentives are stronger among respondents paid in cash and among groups facing legal or administrative uncertainty. Third, family obligations materially affect long-term planning. Many respondents prioritize supporting relatives over retirement savings, and women report lower earnings despite comparable English proficiency and, in this sample, higher educational attainment. Over 2013–2023, Social Security program income and program cost rose alongside the immigrant population, but this aggregate exercise is illustrative only, is not causal, and cannot identify immigrants’ net fiscal impact on the system. The paper’s main contribution is therefore behavioral: it shows how limited knowledge, payment formality, and family obligations shape retirement planning within a non-representative regional sample of first-generation immigrants.
This paper examines how uninsured deposits influence credit union funding and whether private excess deposit insurance alters the stability, pricing, and lending capacity of uninsured deposits — deposits that exceed the federal deposit insurance limit. Using U.S. credit union Call Report data from 1995–2022, we exploit variation across institution size, insurance regime, and participation in optional private excess deposit insurance. We distinguish between pre-crisis (1995–2007) and post-crisis (2009–2022) periods surrounding the 2008 expansion of federal insurance limits. We document pronounced heterogeneity across the size distribution. For small credit unions, uninsured deposits are limited in scale and are associated with lower loan intensity. In contrast, uninsured deposits play a central funding role for large credit unions, which account for 94% of industry assets and 97% of uninsured deposits. For these institutions, uninsured deposits support lending and command higher funding costs — effects that are significantly moderated by excess deposit insurance, reducing funding costs by approximately 27 basis points during the pre-crisis period. Following 2008, excess insurance participation declines among large institutions but increases modestly among small firms. Overall, excess deposit insurance functions as a partial substitute for federal coverage, stabilizing uninsured funding without increasing delinquency rates — evidence against moral hazard.
We study the sinking fund provision in 1,533 nonconvertible corporate bonds issued from 1980 to 1996 with the year 1996 being the last year of inclusion for these provisions in fixed coupon non-convertible corporate bonds. The period 1980 to 1996 is classified as the period of high interest rates (Tewari, Byrd, and Ramanlal, 2015). We find that the provision addresses agency issues due to reinvestment risk, credit improvement, and growth options. When the interest rates are high, investment grade issues with sinking fund have longer maturities (> 20 years) by a ratio exceeding 4:1, while non-sinking fund issues have shorter maturities (≤ 20 years) by a ratio of about 2:1. High yield issues with sinking fund experience credit risk improvement, while non-sinking fund issues experience credit risk deterioration. When the rates are low and expected to rise, the provision is likely to present accumulation threat to the firm thereby, deterrent to its use by the firms. Also, firms use the sinking fund as a call option to capture the benefits of growth. These results suggest that the sinking fund provision has the potential to make a comeback in the corporate debt in a high-interest rate environment and when the rates are likely to fall. The current environment of persistent high rates presents conditions ripe for inclusion of the sinking fund provision in the corporate bonds.
Maintaining adequate liquidity while preserving profitability remains a central challenge for commercial banks because liquid assets strengthen resilience but typically generate lower returns than loans and other earning assets. This study investigates the effect of liquidity on the profitability of U.S. commercial banks using 8,000 quarterly bank observations for 2010–2024. Profitability is measured by return on assets (ROA), with return on equity (ROE) used for robustness, while liquidity, capital adequacy, the loan-to-asset ratio, and bank size are modeled as explanatory variables. Pooled OLS, fixed-effects, and random-effects estimators are compared, and diagnostic tests support a two-way fixed-effects model with standard errors clustered by bank and quarter. The preferred estimates show that a one-percentage-point increase in the liquidity ratio reduces annualized ROA by 0.0183 percentage points (SE = 0.0031; p < 0.001). A one-standard-deviation rise in liquidity, equal to 5.52 percentage points, lowers ROA by approximately 0.101 percentage points, representing 9.2% of the sample mean ROA of 1.097%. Capital adequacy increases ROA by 0.0530 percentage points, and the loan-to-asset ratio increases it by 0.0148 percentage points, both at p < 0.001, whereas bank size is insignificant (β = 0.1008; p = 0.352). The ROE robustness model also yields a negative liquidity coefficient of −0.1074 (p < 0.001). The findings confirm a measurable liquidity–profitability trade-off and support risk-sensitive liquidity regulation that protects financial stability without encouraging persistently excessive holdings of low-yield liquid assets.
This paper examines how uninsured deposits influence credit union funding and whether private excess deposit insurance alters the stability, pricing, and lending capacity of uninsured deposits — deposits that exceed the federal deposit insurance limit. Using U.S. credit union Call Report data from 1995–2022, we exploit variation across institution size, insurance regime, and participation in optional private excess deposit insurance. We distinguish between pre-crisis (1995–2007) and post-crisis (2009–2022) periods surrounding the 2008 expansion of federal insurance limits. We document pronounced heterogeneity across the size distribution. For small credit unions, uninsured deposits are limited in scale and are associated with lower loan intensity. In contrast, uninsured deposits play a central funding role for large credit unions, which account for 94% of industry assets and 97% of uninsured deposits. For these institutions, uninsured deposits support lending and command higher funding costs — effects that are significantly moderated by excess deposit insurance, reducing funding costs by approximately 27 basis points during the pre-crisis period. Following 2008, excess insurance participation declines among large institutions but increases modestly among small firms. Overall, excess deposit insurance functions as a partial substitute for federal coverage, stabilizing uninsured funding without increasing delinquency rates — evidence against moral hazard.
This study examines how first-generation immigrants in the United States plan for retirement, report income, and engage with the Social Security system. The analysis combines an original anonymous survey of 120 first-generation immigrants with descriptive, correlational, and illustrative aggregate evidence constructed from Social Security Administration, Census Bureau, and related institutional data for 2013–2023. The survey results show three consistent patterns. First, retirement knowledge is limited: most respondents do not understand how Social Security benefits are calculated, yet a large majority would attend retirement-planning workshops. Second, financial behavior is shaped by legal status and labor-market formality. Tax filing rates are high overall, but underreporting incentives are stronger among respondents paid in cash and among groups facing legal or administrative uncertainty. Third, family obligations materially affect long-term planning. Many respondents prioritize supporting relatives over retirement savings, and women report lower earnings despite comparable English proficiency and, in this sample, higher educational attainment. Over 2013–2023, Social Security program income and program cost rose alongside the immigrant population, but this aggregate exercise is illustrative only, is not causal, and cannot identify immigrants’ net fiscal impact on the system. The paper’s main contribution is therefore behavioral: it shows how limited knowledge, payment formality, and family obligations shape retirement planning within a non-representative regional sample of first-generation immigrants.
We study the sinking fund provision in 1,533 nonconvertible corporate bonds issued from 1980 to 1996 with the year 1996 being the last year of inclusion for these provisions in fixed coupon non-convertible corporate bonds. The period 1980 to 1996 is classified as the period of high interest rates (Tewari, Byrd, and Ramanlal, 2015). We find that the provision addresses agency issues due to reinvestment risk, credit improvement, and growth options. When the interest rates are high, investment grade issues with sinking fund have longer maturities (> 20 years) by a ratio exceeding 4:1, while non-sinking fund issues have shorter maturities (≤ 20 years) by a ratio of about 2:1. High yield issues with sinking fund experience credit risk improvement, while non-sinking fund issues experience credit risk deterioration. When the rates are low and expected to rise, the provision is likely to present accumulation threat to the firm thereby, deterrent to its use by the firms. Also, firms use the sinking fund as a call option to capture the benefits of growth. These results suggest that the sinking fund provision has the potential to make a comeback in the corporate debt in a high-interest rate environment and when the rates are likely to fall. The current environment of persistent high rates presents conditions ripe for inclusion of the sinking fund provision in the corporate bonds.
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 |