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: 8 / 8 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: 22 Oct 2026 01:20 UTC — 22 Oct 2026 11:43 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.
7 / 8 with data · 1 missing or unmatched. Percentages use all 8 selected publications.
7 / 8 with data · 1 missing or unmatched. Percentages use all 8 selected publications.
8 / 8 with data · 0 missing or unmatched. Percentages use all 8 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2013 | All selected publications | 1 | 1 | 1/1 | 1/1 |
| 2014 | All selected publications | 0 | 0 | 0/0 | 0/0 |
| 2015 | All selected publications | 0 | 0 | 0/0 | 0/0 |
| 2016 | All selected publications | 1 | 1 | 1/1 | 1/1 |
| 2017 | All selected publications | 0 | 0 | 0/0 | 0/0 |
| 2018 | All selected publications | 0 | 0 | 0/0 | 0/0 |
| 2019 | All selected publications | 2 | 2 | 2/2 | 2/2 |
| 2020 | All selected publications | 1 | 1 | 1/1 | 1/1 |
| 2021 | All selected publications | 0 | 0 | 0/0 | 0/0 |
| 2022 | All selected publications | 0 | 0 | 0/0 | 0/0 |
| 2023 | All selected publications | 0 | 0 | 0/0 | 0/0 |
| 2024 | All selected publications | 0 | 0 | 0/0 | 0/0 |
| 2025 | All selected publications | 2 | 2 | 2/2 | 2/2 |
| 2026 | All selected publications | 1 | 1 | 1/1 | 1/1 |
| Publication year | Journal / scope | Crossref citations | Publications | Crossref known | OpenAlex known |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2013 | All selected publications | 1 | 1 | 1/1 | 1/1 |
| 2014 | All selected publications | — | 0 | 0/0 | 0/0 |
| 2015 | All selected publications | — | 0 | 0/0 | 0/0 |
| 2016 | All selected publications | 2 | 1 | 1/1 | 1/1 |
| 2017 | All selected publications | — | 0 | 0/0 | 0/0 |
| 2018 | All selected publications | — | 0 | 0/0 | 0/0 |
| 2019 | All selected publications | 4 | 2 | 2/2 | 2/2 |
| 2020 | All selected publications | 11 | 1 | 1/1 | 1/1 |
| 2021 | All selected publications | — | 0 | 0/0 | 0/0 |
| 2022 | All selected publications | — | 0 | 0/0 | 0/0 |
| 2023 | All selected publications | — | 0 | 0/0 | 0/0 |
| 2024 | All selected publications | — | 0 | 0/0 | 0/0 |
| 2025 | All selected publications | 1 | 2 | 2/2 | 2/2 |
| 2026 | All selected publications | 0 | 1 | 1/1 | 1/1 |
| Publication year | Journal / scope | OpenAlex citations | Publications | Crossref known | OpenAlex known |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2013 | All selected publications | 3 | 1 | 1/1 | 1/1 |
| 2014 | All selected publications | — | 0 | 0/0 | 0/0 |
| 2015 | All selected publications | — | 0 | 0/0 | 0/0 |
| 2016 | All selected publications | 3 | 1 | 1/1 | 1/1 |
| 2017 | All selected publications | — | 0 | 0/0 | 0/0 |
| 2018 | All selected publications | — | 0 | 0/0 | 0/0 |
| 2019 | All selected publications | 10 | 2 | 2/2 | 2/2 |
| 2020 | All selected publications | 20 | 1 | 1/1 | 1/1 |
| 2021 | All selected publications | — | 0 | 0/0 | 0/0 |
| 2022 | All selected publications | — | 0 | 0/0 | 0/0 |
| 2023 | All selected publications | — | 0 | 0/0 | 0/0 |
| 2024 | All selected publications | — | 0 | 0/0 | 0/0 |
| 2025 | All selected publications | 1 | 2 | 2/2 | 2/2 |
| 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 8 / 8 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): 2026-10-22T01:20:50.875437+00:00 — 2026-10-22T11:43:25.877448+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 | 8 | 8/8 |
| 2018 | All selected publications | 0 | 8 | 8/8 |
| 2019 | All selected publications | 2 | 8 | 8/8 |
| 2020 | All selected publications | 3 | 8 | 8/8 |
| 2021 | All selected publications | 6 | 8 | 8/8 |
| 2022 | All selected publications | 4 | 8 | 8/8 |
| 2023 | All selected publications | 6 | 8 | 8/8 |
| 2024 | All selected publications | 7 | 8 | 8/8 |
| 2025 | All selected publications | 8 | 8 | 8/8 |
| 2026 | All selected publications | 1 | 8 | 8/8 |
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 |
|---|---|
| 2013 | 1 |
| 2016 | 1 |
| 2019 | 2 |
| 2020 | 1 |
| 2025 | 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 Finance & Banking Studies SSBFNET | 6 | 18 | 35 | 6/6 | 3.0 | 1.5 | 83.3 | 6/6 · 100.0% |
| International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science SSBFNET | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2/2 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 50.0 | 2/2 · 100.0% |
* Percentage among publications with a known citation count.
The purpose of this study is to determine which indicators are more capable of showing more accurate sell and buy signals on the LQ45 index by using the oscillator indicator Moving Average Divergent Convergent (MACD), Bollinger Band, and Relative Strength Index (RSI). The results in this study indicate that the sell signal can be captured well by the Bollinger band and MACD indicators, but it cannot be captured properly by the RSI, the volume can be small or heading and are in the side ways, while the MACD plays a too slow role in capturing the signal buy compared to Bollinger bands and RSI. The use of a single indicator will never show a buy and sell signal that is really accurate, this is based on the results of research that shows the difference in timeliness in Bollinger, RSI and also MACD so that the combination of several types of indicators will be better compared to using single indicators. Although in statistics there are no significant differences, there are only differences in increment and improvement in the placement of existing values, but in this case, the order of this value is crucial for traders because it requires very high accuracy to determine the right decision in daily transactions.
A logistic regression model is has also become a popular model because of its ability to predict, classify and draw relationships between a dichotomous dependent variable and dependent variables. On the other hand, the R programming language has become a popular language for building and implementing predictive analytics models. In this paper, we apply a logistic regression model in the R environment in order to examine whether daily trading volume at the Botswana Stock Exchange influence daily stock market movement. Specifically, we use a logistic regression model to find the relationship between daily stock movement and the trading volumes experienced in the recent five previous trading days. Our results show that only the trading volume for the third previous day influence current stock market index movement. Overall, trading volumes of the past five days were found not have an impact on today’s stock market movement. The results can be used as a basis for building a predictive model that utilizes trading as a predictor of stock market movement.
The purpose of this study is to explore the importance and ranking of technical analysis variables in Turkish banking sector. Random Forest method is used for determining importance scores of inputs for eight banks in Borsa Istanbul. Then two predictive models utilizing Random Forest (RF) and Artificial Neural Networks (ANN) are built for predicting BIST-100 index and bank closing prices. Results of the models are compared by three metrics namely Mean Absolute Error (MAE), Mean Square Error (MSE), Median Absolute Error (MedAE). Findings show that moving average (MAV-100) is the most important variable for both BIST -100 index and bank closing prices. Therefore, investors should follow this technical indicator with respect to Turkish banks. In addition ANN shows better performance for all metrics.
This study investigates the application of Recurrent Neural Network (RNN) and Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) models for predicting Bitcoin prices, with the objective of enhancing investment approaches. Given Bitcoin's significant volatility and inherent risk, accurate price forecasting is vital for making strategic decisions. The research evaluates model performance by analyzing Bitcoin price data spanning May 25, 2020, to May 25, 2024, employing quantitative methodologies like experimental design and predictive analysis. Results indicate the LSTM model achieves superior predictive accuracy over the RNN model, demonstrated by reduced Mean Absolute Percentage Error (MAPE) and Root Mean Squared Error (RMSE) figures. Additionally, the research delves into how these models affect the Dollar Cost Averaging (DCA) investment strategy, offering perspectives on the advantages and drawbacks of using machine learning to optimize cryptocurrency investments.
The aim of this study to examine the performance of Support Vector Regression (SVR) which is a novel regression method based on Support Vector Machines (SVM) approach in predicting the Istanbul Stock Exchange (ISE) National 100 Index daily returns. For bechmarking, results given by SVR were compared to those given by classical Linear Regression (LR). Dataset contains 6 technical indicators which were selected as model inputs for 2005-2011 period. Grid search and cross valiadation is used for finding optimal model parameters and evaluating the models. Comparisons were made based on Root Mean Square (RMSE), Mean Absolute Error (MAE), Mean Absolute Percentage Error (MAPE), Theil Inequality Coefficient (TIC) and Mean Mixed Error (MME) metrics. Results indicate that SVR outperforms the LR for all metrics.
The purpose of this study was to investigate the efficacy of hybrid forecasting models that integrate the classical Autoregressive integrated moving average framework, the support vector machines, the artificial neural networks, and random forest for predicting S&P 500 index returns. Utilizing daily share price data from 2015 to 2023, the methodology used a two-stage decomposition process where ARIMA captured linear dependencies, while the ML models projected nonlinear patterns within the residuals. The Out-of-sample analysis revealed that all the hybrid models significantly outperformed their standalone ARIMA benchmark across key accuracy metrics, such as mean absolute error, root mean squared error, and directional accuracy. The ARIMA-RF hybrid achieved the highest predictive accuracy and statistical significance, though it entailed a greater computational cost. The findings confirmed that the hybrid forecasting capabilities to mitigate linear autocorrelation and ARCH effects, offering a robust approach for financial time series forecasting.
This study investigates the application of Recurrent Neural Network (RNN) and Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) models for predicting Bitcoin prices, with the objective of enhancing investment approaches. Given Bitcoin's significant volatility and inherent risk, accurate price forecasting is vital for making strategic decisions. The research evaluates model performance by analyzing Bitcoin price data spanning May 25, 2020, to May 25, 2024, employing quantitative methodologies like experimental design and predictive analysis. Results indicate the LSTM model achieves superior predictive accuracy over the RNN model, demonstrated by reduced Mean Absolute Percentage Error (MAPE) and Root Mean Squared Error (RMSE) figures. Additionally, the research delves into how these models affect the Dollar Cost Averaging (DCA) investment strategy, offering perspectives on the advantages and drawbacks of using machine learning to optimize cryptocurrency investments.
This study examines whether Large Language Models (LLMs) can support momentum-based breakout strategies for retail investors by analysing technical charts and validating statistical patterns. We analysed 3,621 price charts (2023–2025) to assess LLMs’ ability to identify trading setups and deviations from random walk behaviour. 13,624 tests were run on 1,204 trades using various statistical tests. While 70% of patterns conformed to random walk behaviour in the short term (7–15 days), momentum signals rose to 26.42% over longer periods (50–250 days). Complex prompting produced both higher random walk classification (72.41% vs. 69.29%) and better returns than single-shot prompting. Incorporating Gamma Exposure (GEX) improved caution but reduced return rates. Discrepancies of up to 20% between JavaScript and Python implementations underscored LLMs’ current limitations in statistical precision. Overall, LLMs may democratise technical analysis but still require human oversight, structured prompting, and validation through traditional methods.
The purpose of this study is to determine which indicators are more capable of showing more accurate sell and buy signals on the LQ45 index by using the oscillator indicator Moving Average Divergent Convergent (MACD), Bollinger Band, and Relative Strength Index (RSI). The results in this study indicate that the sell signal can be captured well by the Bollinger band and MACD indicators, but it cannot be captured properly by the RSI, the volume can be small or heading and are in the side ways, while the MACD plays a too slow role in capturing the signal buy compared to Bollinger bands and RSI. The use of a single indicator will never show a buy and sell signal that is really accurate, this is based on the results of research that shows the difference in timeliness in Bollinger, RSI and also MACD so that the combination of several types of indicators will be better compared to using single indicators. Although in statistics there are no significant differences, there are only differences in increment and improvement in the placement of existing values, but in this case, the order of this value is crucial for traders because it requires very high accuracy to determine the right decision in daily transactions.
A logistic regression model is has also become a popular model because of its ability to predict, classify and draw relationships between a dichotomous dependent variable and dependent variables. On the other hand, the R programming language has become a popular language for building and implementing predictive analytics models. In this paper, we apply a logistic regression model in the R environment in order to examine whether daily trading volume at the Botswana Stock Exchange influence daily stock market movement. Specifically, we use a logistic regression model to find the relationship between daily stock movement and the trading volumes experienced in the recent five previous trading days. Our results show that only the trading volume for the third previous day influence current stock market index movement. Overall, trading volumes of the past five days were found not have an impact on today’s stock market movement. The results can be used as a basis for building a predictive model that utilizes trading as a predictor of stock market movement.
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 19:56 UTC · ijfbs | complete · ijfbs · 20 Oct 2026 19:55 UTC |
| openalex-enrichment | 21 Oct 2026 07:23 UTC · ijrbs | complete · ijrbs · 21 Oct 2026 07:22 UTC |