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 / 4 publications (100.0%). Latest observation: 21 Oct 2026, 00:14 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 01:17 UTC — 22 Oct 2026 03:19 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 / 4 with data · 1 missing or unmatched. Percentages use all 4 selected publications.
3 / 4 with data · 1 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 1 | 1 | 1/1 | 1/1 |
| 2026 | All selected publications | 2 | 2 | 2/2 | 2/2 |
| Publication year | Journal / scope | Crossref citations | Publications | Crossref known | OpenAlex known |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 1 | 1/1 | 1/1 |
| 2026 | All selected publications | 0 | 2 | 2/2 | 2/2 |
| Publication year | Journal / scope | OpenAlex citations | Publications | Crossref known | OpenAlex known |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 1 | 1/1 | 1/1 |
| 2026 | All selected publications | 0 | 2 | 2/2 | 2/2 |
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): 2026-10-22T01:17:45.499250+00:00 — 2026-10-22T03:19:47.194467+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 |
|---|---|
| 2022 | 1 |
| 2025 | 1 |
| 2026 | 2 |
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 Business Ecosystem & Strategy Bussecon International Academy | 4 | 0 | 0 | 4/4 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 4/4 · 100.0% |
* Percentage among publications with a known citation count.
Herding behaviour has been shown to significantly influence market performance over the years, often leading to mispricing of assets due to asset bubbles. This study aimed to analyse herding behaviour on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange (JSE) before, during and after COVID-19. A cross-sectional absolute deviation (CSAD) model was used to determine the presence of herding during the specified periods, from the 1st of January 2018 to the 31st of January 2024, while causes and implications were explored further to offer a better understanding of herding behaviour. Herding behaviour was detected in all observed periods, which was not anticipated, which raised the need to discuss the policies in place to curb irrational investor behaviour. The evidence suggests that portfolio managers should understand that herding behaviour can cause market movements that are not necessarily rational or based on fundamentals. Instead, the results indicate that prices can be influenced by collective sentiment. As such, portfolio managers can assess the risks associated with blindly following the crowd and formulate strategies to avoid it. Portfolio managers can also educate their clients on the risks associated with herding behaviour to set realistic expectations and prioritise long-term stability over short-term trends.
This study provides a contemporary analysis of the dynamic interplay between persistent trends and short-term stochastic movements in international financial markets, challenging the traditional view of an efficient market. Through a quantitative examination of the S&P 500, FTSE 100, Nikkei 225, DAX, and CAC 40 using daily closing prices from 2000 to 2023, the research employs a 50-day SMA to identify trends and a 14-day stochastic oscillator to gauge whether some financial markets are overbought or oversold. The findings reveal distinct, regime-dependent market behaviors across different economies, with strong uptrends in the United States and Germany contrasting with weaker trends in the United Kingdom and France and a downtrend in Japan. The results empirically demonstrate that a trend following strategy, which goes long during uptrends and remains neutral during downtrends, consistently enhances risk adjusted returns and preserves capital compared to a static buy and hold approach. Furthermore, correlation analysis emphasis that effective global diversification requires an understanding of synchronous market regimes, not just holding different assets. The findings of this study suggest that disciplined, regime aware framework, integrating both trend and momentum signals, is essential for robust global asset allocation in today's complex financial landscape making it a noteworthy contribution.
The increasing inter relationship between financial markets have led to the discovery of new risk dynamics particularly when considering downside risk. Recent advances in econometric modelling have prompted the search for new insights into the intertemporal dynamics between downside risks and expected stock returns. Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate this relationship in the S&P 500, the FTSE 100, the DAX, the Nikkei 225, and the TSX Composite, covering the period from January 2000 to December 2023. Using a time-varying transition probability model, the findings revealed consistent negative correlations between downside risk measures and expected returns across all markets, with CVaR exhibiting stronger inverse relationships compared to VaR. These findings challenge the classical risk-return trade-off but align with behavioural explanations where heightened risk aversion during downturns suppresses returns. The regime-switching analysis further uncovers asymmetry in transition probabilities where high-risk regimes persist with a 74% probability, while low-risk regimes show greater stability. By implication, this study provides empirical support for regulatory frameworks prioritizing tail risk mitigation, particularly in volatile markets.
Market anomaly is an occurring phenomenon in the market. Supposedly, an anomaly does not exist in markets that are considered efficient. An anomaly is an aberration in the efficient market theory where existing information does not reflect stock prices; therefore, investors can earn abnormal returns. This study examines how The Day Of The Week Effect and The Month Of The Year Effect affect stock returns on the Indonesian Stock Price Index and the Global Stock Price Index. Samples in this study are daily stock return data and return data on stocks of IHSG, DJIA, SSEC, and N225. The Generalized Autoregressive Conditional Heteroscedasticity (GARCH) model is used to analyze data. The results show that in IHSG and SSEC, there was no The Day Of The Week Effect. The DJIA and N225 were found in The Day of the Week Effect. The Month of the Year Effect was found in IHSG, DJIA, SSEC, and N225.
Herding behaviour has been shown to significantly influence market performance over the years, often leading to mispricing of assets due to asset bubbles. This study aimed to analyse herding behaviour on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange (JSE) before, during and after COVID-19. A cross-sectional absolute deviation (CSAD) model was used to determine the presence of herding during the specified periods, from the 1st of January 2018 to the 31st of January 2024, while causes and implications were explored further to offer a better understanding of herding behaviour. Herding behaviour was detected in all observed periods, which was not anticipated, which raised the need to discuss the policies in place to curb irrational investor behaviour. The evidence suggests that portfolio managers should understand that herding behaviour can cause market movements that are not necessarily rational or based on fundamentals. Instead, the results indicate that prices can be influenced by collective sentiment. As such, portfolio managers can assess the risks associated with blindly following the crowd and formulate strategies to avoid it. Portfolio managers can also educate their clients on the risks associated with herding behaviour to set realistic expectations and prioritise long-term stability over short-term trends.
This study provides a contemporary analysis of the dynamic interplay between persistent trends and short-term stochastic movements in international financial markets, challenging the traditional view of an efficient market. Through a quantitative examination of the S&P 500, FTSE 100, Nikkei 225, DAX, and CAC 40 using daily closing prices from 2000 to 2023, the research employs a 50-day SMA to identify trends and a 14-day stochastic oscillator to gauge whether some financial markets are overbought or oversold. The findings reveal distinct, regime-dependent market behaviors across different economies, with strong uptrends in the United States and Germany contrasting with weaker trends in the United Kingdom and France and a downtrend in Japan. The results empirically demonstrate that a trend following strategy, which goes long during uptrends and remains neutral during downtrends, consistently enhances risk adjusted returns and preserves capital compared to a static buy and hold approach. Furthermore, correlation analysis emphasis that effective global diversification requires an understanding of synchronous market regimes, not just holding different assets. The findings of this study suggest that disciplined, regime aware framework, integrating both trend and momentum signals, is essential for robust global asset allocation in today's complex financial landscape making it a noteworthy contribution.
The increasing inter relationship between financial markets have led to the discovery of new risk dynamics particularly when considering downside risk. Recent advances in econometric modelling have prompted the search for new insights into the intertemporal dynamics between downside risks and expected stock returns. Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate this relationship in the S&P 500, the FTSE 100, the DAX, the Nikkei 225, and the TSX Composite, covering the period from January 2000 to December 2023. Using a time-varying transition probability model, the findings revealed consistent negative correlations between downside risk measures and expected returns across all markets, with CVaR exhibiting stronger inverse relationships compared to VaR. These findings challenge the classical risk-return trade-off but align with behavioural explanations where heightened risk aversion during downturns suppresses returns. The regime-switching analysis further uncovers asymmetry in transition probabilities where high-risk regimes persist with a 74% probability, while low-risk regimes show greater stability. By implication, this study provides empirical support for regulatory frameworks prioritizing tail risk mitigation, particularly in volatile markets.
Market anomaly is an occurring phenomenon in the market. Supposedly, an anomaly does not exist in markets that are considered efficient. An anomaly is an aberration in the efficient market theory where existing information does not reflect stock prices; therefore, investors can earn abnormal returns. This study examines how The Day Of The Week Effect and The Month Of The Year Effect affect stock returns on the Indonesian Stock Price Index and the Global Stock Price Index. Samples in this study are daily stock return data and return data on stocks of IHSG, DJIA, SSEC, and N225. The Generalized Autoregressive Conditional Heteroscedasticity (GARCH) model is used to analyze data. The results show that in IHSG and SSEC, there was no The Day Of The Week Effect. The DJIA and N225 were found in The Day of the Week Effect. The Month of the Year Effect was found in IHSG, DJIA, SSEC, and N225.
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 00:14 UTC · ijbes | complete · ijbes · 21 Oct 2026 00:14 UTC |
| ojs-rest | 21 Oct 2026 00:14 UTC · ijbes | complete · ijbes · 21 Oct 2026 00:02 UTC |
| oai-pmh | 20 Oct 2026 19:49 UTC · ijbes | complete · ijbes · 20 Oct 2026 19:48 UTC |
| openalex-enrichment | 21 Oct 2026 00:14 UTC · ijbes | complete · ijbes · 21 Oct 2026 00:14 UTC |