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: 28 Oct 2026 21:25 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 | 5 | 3 | 3/3 | 3/3 |
| Publication year | Journal / scope | OpenAlex citations | Publications | Crossref known | OpenAlex known |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2021 | All selected publications | 13 | 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): 2026-10-28T21:25:51.248772+00:00 — 2026-10-29T16:12:31.445506+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 | 2 | 3 | 3/3 |
| 2023 | All selected publications | 7 | 3 | 3/3 |
| 2024 | All selected publications | 2 | 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 |
|---|---|
| 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 | 5 | 13 | 3/3 | 1.67 | 1 | 100.0 | 3/3 · 100.0% |
* Percentage among publications with a known citation count.
The purpose of the study is aimed at determining the financial socialisation of accounting students at South African universities and the factors that influence financial socialisation. The research used statistical techniques such as the structural equation modelling methodology to identify financial socialisation influencers and regression analysis to analyse associations between financial socialisation and socio-demographic variables among 1582 students. The study's results indicate that financial socialisation agents such as relatives, friends, and social media have little impact on most students' financial decisions. The majority of accounting students are often found to be financially socialised by their immediate family members rather than peers or social media factors. The regression analysis results confirmed this observation, revealing a statistically significant association between the parents' level of education and the students' financial socialisation. This study recommends that financial socialisation can be greatly improved by raising parents' educational levels and instilling financial education in university students' curricula, especially in South Africa.
The purpose of this study is to investigate the suitable arbitrage-free term-structure model that might be able to fit the South African inflation-indexed spot-rate curve. The instrument has relatively less tradability in the market, which then translates into a lack of adequate data for bond valuation/pricing. Pricing deviations might give inflated/deflated projections on the value of government debt; consequently, higher estimated interest cost to be paid. A proper valuation of these instruments is mandatory as they form part of government funding/borrowing and the country’s budgeting processes in the medium term. The performance of newly developed non-linear multifactor models that follows the Nelson-Siegel (1987) framework was compared to the arbitrage-free Vasicek (1977) model and linear parametric models to assess any significant deviations in forecasting the real spot-rate curve over a short period. Models with constant parameters (i.e. linear parametric, cubic splines, Nelson-Siegel (1987) and Svensson (1994)) gave a perfect fit, they proved to marginally lose fitting capabilities during periods of higher volatility. Therefore, it could be concluded that the application of either Nelson-Siegel (1987) model or Svensson (1994) model on forecasting South African real spot-rate curve gave a perfect fit. However, for a solid conclusion to be derived, it is imperative to explore the performance of these models over a period of stressed market and economic conditions.
Risk management and prediction of market losses of cryptocurrencies are of notable value to risk managers, portfolio managers, financial market researchers and academics. One of the most common measures of an asset’s risk is Value-at-Risk (VaR). This paper evaluates and compares the performance of generalized autoregressive score (GAS) combined with heavy-tailed distributions, in estimating the VaR of two well-known cryptocurrencies’ returns, namely Bitcoin returns and Ethereum returns. In this paper, we proposed a VaR model for Bitcoin and Ethereum returns, namely the GAS model combined with the generalized lambda distribution (GLD), referred to as the GAS-GLD model. The relative performance of the GAS-GLD models was compared to the models proposed by Troster et al. (2018), in other words, GAS models combined with asymmetric Laplace distribution (ALD), the asymmetric Student’s t-distribution (AST) and the skew Student’s t-distribution (SSTD). The Kupiec likelihood ratio test was used to assess the adequacy of the proposed models. The principal findings suggest that the GAS models with heavy-tailed innovation distributions are, in fact, appropriate for modelling cryptocurrency returns, with the GAS-GLD being the most adequate for the Bitcoin returns at various VaR levels, and both GAS-SSTD, GAS-ALD and GAS-GLD models being the most appropriate for the Ethereum returns at the VaR levels used in this study.
Risk management and prediction of market losses of cryptocurrencies are of notable value to risk managers, portfolio managers, financial market researchers and academics. One of the most common measures of an asset’s risk is Value-at-Risk (VaR). This paper evaluates and compares the performance of generalized autoregressive score (GAS) combined with heavy-tailed distributions, in estimating the VaR of two well-known cryptocurrencies’ returns, namely Bitcoin returns and Ethereum returns. In this paper, we proposed a VaR model for Bitcoin and Ethereum returns, namely the GAS model combined with the generalized lambda distribution (GLD), referred to as the GAS-GLD model. The relative performance of the GAS-GLD models was compared to the models proposed by Troster et al. (2018), in other words, GAS models combined with asymmetric Laplace distribution (ALD), the asymmetric Student’s t-distribution (AST) and the skew Student’s t-distribution (SSTD). The Kupiec likelihood ratio test was used to assess the adequacy of the proposed models. The principal findings suggest that the GAS models with heavy-tailed innovation distributions are, in fact, appropriate for modelling cryptocurrency returns, with the GAS-GLD being the most adequate for the Bitcoin returns at various VaR levels, and both GAS-SSTD, GAS-ALD and GAS-GLD models being the most appropriate for the Ethereum returns at the VaR levels used in this study.
The purpose of this study is to investigate the suitable arbitrage-free term-structure model that might be able to fit the South African inflation-indexed spot-rate curve. The instrument has relatively less tradability in the market, which then translates into a lack of adequate data for bond valuation/pricing. Pricing deviations might give inflated/deflated projections on the value of government debt; consequently, higher estimated interest cost to be paid. A proper valuation of these instruments is mandatory as they form part of government funding/borrowing and the country’s budgeting processes in the medium term. The performance of newly developed non-linear multifactor models that follows the Nelson-Siegel (1987) framework was compared to the arbitrage-free Vasicek (1977) model and linear parametric models to assess any significant deviations in forecasting the real spot-rate curve over a short period. Models with constant parameters (i.e. linear parametric, cubic splines, Nelson-Siegel (1987) and Svensson (1994)) gave a perfect fit, they proved to marginally lose fitting capabilities during periods of higher volatility. Therefore, it could be concluded that the application of either Nelson-Siegel (1987) model or Svensson (1994) model on forecasting South African real spot-rate curve gave a perfect fit. However, for a solid conclusion to be derived, it is imperative to explore the performance of these models over a period of stressed market and economic conditions.
The purpose of the study is aimed at determining the financial socialisation of accounting students at South African universities and the factors that influence financial socialisation. The research used statistical techniques such as the structural equation modelling methodology to identify financial socialisation influencers and regression analysis to analyse associations between financial socialisation and socio-demographic variables among 1582 students. The study's results indicate that financial socialisation agents such as relatives, friends, and social media have little impact on most students' financial decisions. The majority of accounting students are often found to be financially socialised by their immediate family members rather than peers or social media factors. The regression analysis results confirmed this observation, revealing a statistically significant association between the parents' level of education and the students' financial socialisation. This study recommends that financial socialisation can be greatly improved by raising parents' educational levels and instilling financial education in university students' curricula, especially in South Africa.
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 |