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, 07:22 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 07:22 UTC — 22 Oct 2026 18:38 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2024 | All selected publications | 2 | 2 | 2/2 | 2/2 |
| 2025 | All selected publications | 0 | 0 | 0/0 | 0/0 |
| 2026 | All selected publications | 1 | 1 | 1/1 | 1/1 |
| Publication year | Journal / scope | Crossref citations | Publications | Crossref known | OpenAlex known |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2024 | All selected publications | 2 | 2 | 2/2 | 2/2 |
| 2025 | All selected publications | — | 0 | 0/0 | 0/0 |
| 2026 | All selected publications | 0 | 1 | 1/1 | 1/1 |
| Publication year | Journal / scope | OpenAlex citations | Publications | Crossref known | OpenAlex known |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2024 | All selected publications | 2 | 2 | 2/2 | 2/2 |
| 2025 | All selected publications | — | 0 | 0/0 | 0/0 |
| 2026 | All selected publications | 0 | 1 | 1/1 | 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 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): 2026-10-21T07:22:54.162521+00:00 — 2026-10-22T18:38:00.300869+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 | 0 | 3 | 3/3 |
| 2023 | All selected publications | 0 | 3 | 3/3 |
| 2024 | All selected publications | 0 | 3 | 3/3 |
| 2025 | All selected publications | 1 | 3 | 3/3 |
| 2026 | All selected publications | 1 | 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 |
|---|---|
| 2024 | 2 |
| 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 Research in Business and Social Science SSBFNET | 3 | 2 | 2 | 3/3 | 0.67 | 0 | 33.3 | 3/3 · 100.0% |
* Percentage among publications with a known citation count.
The pricing of insurance premiums in the non-life insurance sector remains a challenging and complex task. It demands a delicate balance between accurately estimating risk exposure and ensuring profitability for insurers. Generalised Linear Regression Models (GLMs) have become the preferred methods for premium price modelling in the motor insurance sector. While the approach of using a single superior model on which predictions are based ignores the use of robust estimator models. This paper examines various methodologies and sheds light on superiority of twenty-two models compared to each other for pricing automobile insurance. These methods vary from traditional actuarial methods to the modern statistical models such as machine learning algorithms. By using archival technique, their inferiority and superiority are explored, considering the ever-changing landscape of risk factors and market dynamics. Furthermore, it highlights the potential benefits of leveraging these methods and the mechanism for pricing short-term insurance, particularly in motor vehicle insurance. It also develops a framework that can be used in pricing to cater to risk analysis constituents to mitigate uncertainties and provide good services to clients. Our findings show that ANN, NN, XGB, random forest (RF) are superior models, and we conclude that the modern statistical methods can accurately estimate the risk exposure as compared to traditional methods such as the GLMs.
The South African insurance industry faces pricing challenges due to increasing catastrophic events driven by climate change and socio-economic uncertainties. The purpose is to find the best practices for vehicle pricing in South Africa. Five leading predictive models: Generalised Linear Models, Random Forest, XGBoost, Gradient Boosting Regressor, and Artificial Neural Networks are compared for estimating motor insurance premiums under normal and optimised conditions. Furthermore, analyses of catastrophic risk distribution are conducted. Results indicate that machine learning techniques, particularly XGBoost, achieve superior predictive accuracy under optimised conditions, along with the lowest RMSE and MAE. Traditional models like GLM ensure interpretability and regulatory compliance but struggle with non-linear complexities. However, integrating GLM with XGBoost enhances predictive performance. XGBoost is superior and GLM highly complies with the regulations. Gauteng is susceptible to malicious damage, KwaZulu-Natal is mostly exposed to floods and storms, and Western Cape is more vulnerable to droughts and earthquakes. These insights highlight the necessity of adaptive, data-driven risk management tailored to regional vulnerabilities. This research contributes to advancements in insurance pricing methodologies, offering actionable insights for policy development, disaster preparedness, and resilience-building strategies to address South Africa’s evolving risk landscape.
An investigation to balance the sustainability of insurance companies and successful claims on insurance policies is important towards the economy, as well as for assisting the insured during financial difficulty when their items are damaged or lost. This paper examines some rejected short-term insurances where a misunderstanding of the contract might have caused the insurer to lose out on the claim. Data were collected from cases of courts and insurers on rejected claims due to misunderstandings by the insured. The first text data set was a court case. The second was a graph on the root causes of claims rejections from the insurer. The third was a matrix data set presenting the languages of the insured. The insurers who had refused to pay insurer claims supplied the latter two. Despite the three contexts being widely different, their results show that rejections of claims by the insurers were due to the insured failing to understand the conditions of the contracts, and thus not being able to figure out what could have caused the rejection. Hence, the use of complicated and legal language in insurance contracts results in the insured not fully understanding the contract, which leads to claims being rejected. The paper recommends the use of simple language and pinpointing in layman's form, those aspects that could lead to rejections of claims.
The South African insurance industry faces pricing challenges due to increasing catastrophic events driven by climate change and socio-economic uncertainties. The purpose is to find the best practices for vehicle pricing in South Africa. Five leading predictive models: Generalised Linear Models, Random Forest, XGBoost, Gradient Boosting Regressor, and Artificial Neural Networks are compared for estimating motor insurance premiums under normal and optimised conditions. Furthermore, analyses of catastrophic risk distribution are conducted. Results indicate that machine learning techniques, particularly XGBoost, achieve superior predictive accuracy under optimised conditions, along with the lowest RMSE and MAE. Traditional models like GLM ensure interpretability and regulatory compliance but struggle with non-linear complexities. However, integrating GLM with XGBoost enhances predictive performance. XGBoost is superior and GLM highly complies with the regulations. Gauteng is susceptible to malicious damage, KwaZulu-Natal is mostly exposed to floods and storms, and Western Cape is more vulnerable to droughts and earthquakes. These insights highlight the necessity of adaptive, data-driven risk management tailored to regional vulnerabilities. This research contributes to advancements in insurance pricing methodologies, offering actionable insights for policy development, disaster preparedness, and resilience-building strategies to address South Africa’s evolving risk landscape.
An investigation to balance the sustainability of insurance companies and successful claims on insurance policies is important towards the economy, as well as for assisting the insured during financial difficulty when their items are damaged or lost. This paper examines some rejected short-term insurances where a misunderstanding of the contract might have caused the insurer to lose out on the claim. Data were collected from cases of courts and insurers on rejected claims due to misunderstandings by the insured. The first text data set was a court case. The second was a graph on the root causes of claims rejections from the insurer. The third was a matrix data set presenting the languages of the insured. The insurers who had refused to pay insurer claims supplied the latter two. Despite the three contexts being widely different, their results show that rejections of claims by the insurers were due to the insured failing to understand the conditions of the contracts, and thus not being able to figure out what could have caused the rejection. Hence, the use of complicated and legal language in insurance contracts results in the insured not fully understanding the contract, which leads to claims being rejected. The paper recommends the use of simple language and pinpointing in layman's form, those aspects that could lead to rejections of claims.
The pricing of insurance premiums in the non-life insurance sector remains a challenging and complex task. It demands a delicate balance between accurately estimating risk exposure and ensuring profitability for insurers. Generalised Linear Regression Models (GLMs) have become the preferred methods for premium price modelling in the motor insurance sector. While the approach of using a single superior model on which predictions are based ignores the use of robust estimator models. This paper examines various methodologies and sheds light on superiority of twenty-two models compared to each other for pricing automobile insurance. These methods vary from traditional actuarial methods to the modern statistical models such as machine learning algorithms. By using archival technique, their inferiority and superiority are explored, considering the ever-changing landscape of risk factors and market dynamics. Furthermore, it highlights the potential benefits of leveraging these methods and the mechanism for pricing short-term insurance, particularly in motor vehicle insurance. It also develops a framework that can be used in pricing to cater to risk analysis constituents to mitigate uncertainties and provide good services to clients. Our findings show that ANN, NN, XGB, random forest (RF) are superior models, and we conclude that the modern statistical methods can accurately estimate the risk exposure as compared to traditional methods such as the GLMs.
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 07:22 UTC · ijrbs | complete · ijrbs · 21 Oct 2026 07:22 UTC |
| ojs-rest | 21 Oct 2026 07:22 UTC · ijrbs | complete · ijrbs · 21 Oct 2026 06:46 UTC |
| oai-pmh | 20 Oct 2026 19:55 UTC · ijrbs | complete · ijrbs · 20 Oct 2026 19:50 UTC |
| openalex-enrichment | 21 Oct 2026 07:23 UTC · ijrbs | complete · ijrbs · 21 Oct 2026 07:22 UTC |