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: 4 / 5 publications (80.0%). 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: 21 Oct 2026 00:22 UTC — 22 Oct 2026 01:30 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.
5 / 5 with data · 0 missing or unmatched. Percentages use all 5 selected publications.
5 / 5 with data · 0 missing or unmatched. Percentages use all 5 selected publications.
5 / 5 with data · 0 missing or unmatched. Percentages use all 5 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2019 | All selected publications | 1 | 1 | 1/1 | 1/1 |
| 2020 | All selected publications | 1 | 1 | 1/1 | 1/1 |
| 2021 | All selected publications | 1 | 1 | 1/1 | 1/1 |
| 2022 | All selected publications | 1 | 1 | 1/1 | 1/1 |
| 2023 | All selected publications | 0 | 0 | 0/0 | 0/0 |
| 2024 | All selected publications | 0 | 0 | 0/0 | 0/0 |
| 2025 | All selected publications | 0 | 0 | 0/0 | 0/0 |
| 2026 | All selected publications | 1 | 1 | 0/1 | 1/1 |
| Publication year | Journal / scope | Crossref citations | Publications | Crossref known | OpenAlex known |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2019 | All selected publications | 0 | 1 | 1/1 | 1/1 |
| 2020 | All selected publications | 0 | 1 | 1/1 | 1/1 |
| 2021 | All selected publications | 1 | 1 | 1/1 | 1/1 |
| 2022 | All selected publications | 0 | 1 | 1/1 | 1/1 |
| 2023 | All selected publications | — | 0 | 0/0 | 0/0 |
| 2024 | All selected publications | — | 0 | 0/0 | 0/0 |
| 2025 | All selected publications | — | 0 | 0/0 | 0/0 |
| 2026 | All selected publications | — | 1 | 0/1 | 1/1 |
| Publication year | Journal / scope | OpenAlex citations | Publications | Crossref known | OpenAlex known |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2019 | All selected publications | 0 | 1 | 1/1 | 1/1 |
| 2020 | All selected publications | 0 | 1 | 1/1 | 1/1 |
| 2021 | All selected publications | 1 | 1 | 1/1 | 1/1 |
| 2022 | All selected publications | 0 | 1 | 1/1 | 1/1 |
| 2023 | All selected publications | — | 0 | 0/0 | 0/0 |
| 2024 | All selected publications | — | 0 | 0/0 | 0/0 |
| 2025 | All selected publications | — | 0 | 0/0 | 0/0 |
| 2026 | All selected publications | 0 | 1 | 0/1 | 1/1 |
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 5 / 5 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): 2026-10-21T00:22:02.303418+00:00 — 2026-10-22T01:30:27.292161+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 | 5 | 5/5 |
| 2018 | All selected publications | 0 | 5 | 5/5 |
| 2019 | All selected publications | 0 | 5 | 5/5 |
| 2020 | All selected publications | 0 | 5 | 5/5 |
| 2021 | All selected publications | 0 | 5 | 5/5 |
| 2022 | All selected publications | 1 | 5 | 5/5 |
| 2023 | All selected publications | 0 | 5 | 5/5 |
| 2024 | All selected publications | 0 | 5 | 5/5 |
| 2025 | All selected publications | 0 | 5 | 5/5 |
| 2026 | All selected publications | 0 | 5 | 5/5 |
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 |
|---|---|
| 2019 | 1 |
| 2020 | 1 |
| 2021 | 1 |
| 2022 | 1 |
| 2026 | 1 |
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 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 5/5 | 0.25 | 0.0 | 25.0 | 4/5 · 80.0% |
* Percentage among publications with a known citation count.
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.
Previous study finds that the firms with inferior growth options tend to issue callable bonds. Typically, these firms are characterized by stock underperformance. Previous study also finds that the floating rate as a superior alternative to the call provision, which is restrictive, when the interest rates are likely to fall. We study the long-term stock performance of floating rate notes (FRNs) issuing firms, issued when the interest rates are high. Stock overperformance would suggest floating rate as a preferred choice by the firms with high growth options rather the call option. We find that the FRNs are generally investment grade with extremely rare presence of a call option. We perform the analysis using Buy and hold abnormal return (BHAR) as the proxy for the long-term stock overperformance/underperformance. A sample of floating rate notes issued (1654) from 1992 to 2007, a period of high interest rates, reveals significant overperformance by the floating rate notes issuing firms in the high-rate paradigm. High growth firms, in the high-rate environment, significantly benefit from the floating rate provision which is less restrictive and less costly than the call option, which typically provides call protection period and pays a call premium. Floating rate provision better mitigates the interest rate risk for the firms in the high-rate environment. We find that the smaller, high growth, higher leverage, less profitable firms with greater agency issues benefit more from issuing FRNs in the high-rate environment. Our study has relevance to the stock portfolio construction and performance. We also perform a comparative analysis using the sample of floating rate notes issued (270) during 2008 to 2018, a period of low interest rates, and find stock underperformance. The implications are that the call option likely is a better choice for the firm since the firm preserves the right to forego exercising the option.
We document frequency distribution of 4315 two-party, non-equity alliances undertaken by the U.S. based firms between 1986 and 2015 in 11industries and find that on an aggregate basis, the firms which form multiple alliances based on the exploitation motive are as likely to enter into alliance as the firms that enter into multiple alliances based on the exploration motive. However, we find strong evidence that the firms that enter into alliances on three or more occasions are driven by the exploration motive while, the firms that enter into alliances one and one or two times are driven by the exploitation motive. The average cumulative abnormal returns (ACAR) for all of the three subsamples of firms that undertook one, one or two, and three or more alliances during the time period for this study are all positive but exhibit a declining trend. Firms that are larger in terms of total assets engage more frequently in alliances than smaller firms. Returns to firms that enter into three or more alliances are sensitive to the leverage employed and the likelihood of bankruptcy whereas returns to firms that enter into only one or one or two alliances are affected significantly by the considerations of competitive forces.
The object of this study is to explore the effect of cultural distance on both the long run and short run performance of cross border mergers and acquisitions undertaken by Indian acquiring firms. We utilize buy and hold returns (BHAR), cumulative abnormal returns (CAR) and cross-sectional regression analysis in our study. Adopting the traditional Hofstede measure of cultural distance and other pertinent variables, commonly used to measure cultural differences, we document a negative and statistically significant influence of cultural distance on Indian cross-border M&As and corroborate some of other findings reported in prior research. Also, we find that the BHAR is nevertheless higher when the acquisitions are friendly, paid for 100% cash, and the acquiring firm is large, older and belongs to a business group. The inclusion of the variable ‘business group’ along with industry relatedness and acquirer size provides valuable insights into the Indian cross border acquisition landscape, wherein business groups dominate to a great extent.
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.
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.
Previous study finds that the firms with inferior growth options tend to issue callable bonds. Typically, these firms are characterized by stock underperformance. Previous study also finds that the floating rate as a superior alternative to the call provision, which is restrictive, when the interest rates are likely to fall. We study the long-term stock performance of floating rate notes (FRNs) issuing firms, issued when the interest rates are high. Stock overperformance would suggest floating rate as a preferred choice by the firms with high growth options rather the call option. We find that the FRNs are generally investment grade with extremely rare presence of a call option. We perform the analysis using Buy and hold abnormal return (BHAR) as the proxy for the long-term stock overperformance/underperformance. A sample of floating rate notes issued (1654) from 1992 to 2007, a period of high interest rates, reveals significant overperformance by the floating rate notes issuing firms in the high-rate paradigm. High growth firms, in the high-rate environment, significantly benefit from the floating rate provision which is less restrictive and less costly than the call option, which typically provides call protection period and pays a call premium. Floating rate provision better mitigates the interest rate risk for the firms in the high-rate environment. We find that the smaller, high growth, higher leverage, less profitable firms with greater agency issues benefit more from issuing FRNs in the high-rate environment. Our study has relevance to the stock portfolio construction and performance. We also perform a comparative analysis using the sample of floating rate notes issued (270) during 2008 to 2018, a period of low interest rates, and find stock underperformance. The implications are that the call option likely is a better choice for the firm since the firm preserves the right to forego exercising the option.
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.
We document frequency distribution of 4315 two-party, non-equity alliances undertaken by the U.S. based firms between 1986 and 2015 in 11industries and find that on an aggregate basis, the firms which form multiple alliances based on the exploitation motive are as likely to enter into alliance as the firms that enter into multiple alliances based on the exploration motive. However, we find strong evidence that the firms that enter into alliances on three or more occasions are driven by the exploration motive while, the firms that enter into alliances one and one or two times are driven by the exploitation motive. The average cumulative abnormal returns (ACAR) for all of the three subsamples of firms that undertook one, one or two, and three or more alliances during the time period for this study are all positive but exhibit a declining trend. Firms that are larger in terms of total assets engage more frequently in alliances than smaller firms. Returns to firms that enter into three or more alliances are sensitive to the leverage employed and the likelihood of bankruptcy whereas returns to firms that enter into only one or one or two alliances are affected significantly by the considerations of competitive forces.
The object of this study is to explore the effect of cultural distance on both the long run and short run performance of cross border mergers and acquisitions undertaken by Indian acquiring firms. We utilize buy and hold returns (BHAR), cumulative abnormal returns (CAR) and cross-sectional regression analysis in our study. Adopting the traditional Hofstede measure of cultural distance and other pertinent variables, commonly used to measure cultural differences, we document a negative and statistically significant influence of cultural distance on Indian cross-border M&As and corroborate some of other findings reported in prior research. Also, we find that the BHAR is nevertheless higher when the acquisitions are friendly, paid for 100% cash, and the acquiring firm is large, older and belongs to a business group. The inclusion of the variable ‘business group’ along with industry relatedness and acquirer size provides valuable insights into the Indian cross border acquisition landscape, wherein business groups dominate to a great extent.
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 |