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: 5 / 5 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 01:41 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2023 | All selected publications | 5 | 5 | 5/5 | 5/5 |
| Publication year | Journal / scope | Crossref citations | Publications | Crossref known | OpenAlex known |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2023 | All selected publications | 4 | 5 | 5/5 | 5/5 |
| Publication year | Journal / scope | OpenAlex citations | Publications | Crossref known | OpenAlex known |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2023 | All selected publications | 6 | 5 | 5/5 | 5/5 |
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): 2026-10-21T07:22:48.124247+00:00 — 2026-10-22T01:41:15.045869+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 | 0 | 5 | 5/5 |
| 2023 | All selected publications | 0 | 5 | 5/5 |
| 2024 | All selected publications | 3 | 5 | 5/5 |
| 2025 | All selected publications | 1 | 5 | 5/5 |
| 2026 | All selected publications | 2 | 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 |
|---|---|
| 2023 | 5 |
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 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1/1 | 1.0 | 1 | 100.0 | 1/1 · 100.0% |
| International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science SSBFNET | 4 | 3 | 5 | 4/4 | 0.75 | 0.5 | 50.0 | 4/4 · 100.0% |
* Percentage among publications with a known citation count.
The dynamics of investing in stock markets have changed considerably over the past twenty years. The value and growth investing concept has drawn much attention and continues to dominate portfolio management. Factor investing is an approach that aims at quantifying particular characteristics through matrixes of quality, value, momentum, and growth to improve the returns of a portfolio. Although the three-factor style of investing has gained widespread acceptance, the five-factor continues to be a source of disagreement among academics and industry practitioners. This study aimed to review the merits of five-factor investing critically. A critical literature review was used to review prior literature. The narratives from the literature reveal that the five-factor investing style will result in multiple sources of expected return. Hence, using five factors in portfolio formation has merits and will significantly improve the returns and most likely outperform the market portfolio. Factor premiums have proven to be drivers of asset return. Therefore, market participants and investment managers can intentionally assume additional exposures to deliver superior risk-adjusted returns compared to the market with the five-factor investing style. According to the author's knowledge, this is the first study to objectively analyze the literature on five-factor investing and propose that active managers can earn positive alphas on a risk-adjusted basis through factor exposures.
Mutual fund is one of the investment instruments widely used as an investment option. There are two essential things to be considered by the Investment Manager as a mutual fund manager: the stock selection and the market timing ability. The Covid-19 pandemic has caused many investors to experience potential investment losses. Understanding stock selection and market timing will be needed for determining which Investment Managers perform well in managing equity mutual fund, especially while dealing with the Covid-19 pandemic. The objective of this study is to analyze the ability of Investment Managers to perform stock selection and market timing, the performance of equity mutual fund, and the effect of stock selection and market timing ability on the performance of equity mutual fund in Indonesia. This study applies the Fama net selectivity methods to assess stock selection ability and Treynor-Mazuy and Henriksson-Merton models to analyze market timing ability. Sharpe, Treynor, and Jensen's alpha methods are also used for measuring mutual fund performance. The data is processed per mutual fund to recognize each mutual fund's stock selection and market timing ability. Furthermore, the research spans two time periods: before and following the Covid-19 pandemic. A dataset of 104 equity mutual funds from 2016-2021 has been analyzed. The findings show that only 9 and 12 Investment Managers have stock selection ability prior to and following the Covid-19 pandemic, respectively. According to Treynor Mazuy model, there are only two Investment Managers with market timing ability prior to the Covid-19 pandemic, and only twelve Investment Managers have market timing ability during the Covid-19 pandemic, according to the Henriksson-Merton model. Every mutual fund with stock selection ability outperformed the benchmark. However, not all equity mutual fund with market timing ability outperformed the benchmark.
In the dynamic world of financial markets, the prices of assets can exhibit dramatic fluctuations, sometimes soaring to dizzying heights or plummeting to alarming lows. However, amidst the chaos, a fascinating phenomenon emerges: a tendency for prices to revert back to their long-term average or mean level. This concept known as mean reversion has intrigued traders, investors, and researchers for decades. Understanding mean reversion provides valuable insights into market dynamics, investor behavior, and the potential for profitable trading strategies. The aim of this study was to empirically investigate mean reversion in financial markets. This study employed a Hurst model for a sample of five financial markets from June 1, 2018 to June 1, 2023. The findings revealed that four out of the five sampled financial markets exhibit mean reversion, which challenges the efficient market hypothesis concept. Therefore, portfolio managers and active market participants can utilize long-term memory to optimize asset allocation decisions by considering the persistent effects of past returns and adjusting portfolio weights to take advantage of potential return predictability and manage risk.
To date, there are many myths surrounding security selection and fundamental analysis due to the notion that all available information is perfectly priced in security. However, fundamental analysis is still very useful in determining the financial health of security, which is much needed for long-term investing. The aim of this study was to perform a valuation analysis of international stock markets so as to recommend buy or sell signals suitable for investment decisions. This study made use of the coefficients of a multiple regression analysis and value drivers for the S&P 500, Nasdaq, JSE, DAX, Nikkei 225, BIST 100, FTSE, and SSE as of January 23, 2023. The findings revealed that the JSE, DAX, Nikkei 225, and FTSE are undervalued, which translates to a buy signal, while the S&P 500, Nasdaq, BIST 100, and SSE are overvalued. These findings imply that investing in the JSE, DAX, Nikkei 225, and FTSE will produce decent capital gains on a risk-adjusted basis.
The debate on whether stock prices follow a random walk continues, becoming the foundation of modern portfolio theory. Supporters of the random walk theory still believe that modeling stock prices is a wasteful exercise. However, evidence from momentum pricing strategy and price reversals suggests otherwise. This study aimed to empirically explore the random walk theory in five international stock markets before and during the Covid-19 pandemic from June 30, 2017, to June 30, 2019, and January 1, 2020, to December 31, 2021. A multivariate runs test and a generalised distribution function was applied to investigate the theory. The results revealed no significant difference between the observed S-statistics runs and the expected ones, concluding that it is not common to observe random walks in financial markets consistently. Hence price changes in financial markets are significantly affected not only based on new information and investors’ expectations but also by irrationalities that exist among market participants. These irrationalities can be modeled using a generalised distribution function to produce price patterns.
To date, there are many myths surrounding security selection and fundamental analysis due to the notion that all available information is perfectly priced in security. However, fundamental analysis is still very useful in determining the financial health of security, which is much needed for long-term investing. The aim of this study was to perform a valuation analysis of international stock markets so as to recommend buy or sell signals suitable for investment decisions. This study made use of the coefficients of a multiple regression analysis and value drivers for the S&P 500, Nasdaq, JSE, DAX, Nikkei 225, BIST 100, FTSE, and SSE as of January 23, 2023. The findings revealed that the JSE, DAX, Nikkei 225, and FTSE are undervalued, which translates to a buy signal, while the S&P 500, Nasdaq, BIST 100, and SSE are overvalued. These findings imply that investing in the JSE, DAX, Nikkei 225, and FTSE will produce decent capital gains on a risk-adjusted basis.
In the dynamic world of financial markets, the prices of assets can exhibit dramatic fluctuations, sometimes soaring to dizzying heights or plummeting to alarming lows. However, amidst the chaos, a fascinating phenomenon emerges: a tendency for prices to revert back to their long-term average or mean level. This concept known as mean reversion has intrigued traders, investors, and researchers for decades. Understanding mean reversion provides valuable insights into market dynamics, investor behavior, and the potential for profitable trading strategies. The aim of this study was to empirically investigate mean reversion in financial markets. This study employed a Hurst model for a sample of five financial markets from June 1, 2018 to June 1, 2023. The findings revealed that four out of the five sampled financial markets exhibit mean reversion, which challenges the efficient market hypothesis concept. Therefore, portfolio managers and active market participants can utilize long-term memory to optimize asset allocation decisions by considering the persistent effects of past returns and adjusting portfolio weights to take advantage of potential return predictability and manage risk.
Mutual fund is one of the investment instruments widely used as an investment option. There are two essential things to be considered by the Investment Manager as a mutual fund manager: the stock selection and the market timing ability. The Covid-19 pandemic has caused many investors to experience potential investment losses. Understanding stock selection and market timing will be needed for determining which Investment Managers perform well in managing equity mutual fund, especially while dealing with the Covid-19 pandemic. The objective of this study is to analyze the ability of Investment Managers to perform stock selection and market timing, the performance of equity mutual fund, and the effect of stock selection and market timing ability on the performance of equity mutual fund in Indonesia. This study applies the Fama net selectivity methods to assess stock selection ability and Treynor-Mazuy and Henriksson-Merton models to analyze market timing ability. Sharpe, Treynor, and Jensen's alpha methods are also used for measuring mutual fund performance. The data is processed per mutual fund to recognize each mutual fund's stock selection and market timing ability. Furthermore, the research spans two time periods: before and following the Covid-19 pandemic. A dataset of 104 equity mutual funds from 2016-2021 has been analyzed. The findings show that only 9 and 12 Investment Managers have stock selection ability prior to and following the Covid-19 pandemic, respectively. According to Treynor Mazuy model, there are only two Investment Managers with market timing ability prior to the Covid-19 pandemic, and only twelve Investment Managers have market timing ability during the Covid-19 pandemic, according to the Henriksson-Merton model. Every mutual fund with stock selection ability outperformed the benchmark. However, not all equity mutual fund with market timing ability outperformed the benchmark.
The dynamics of investing in stock markets have changed considerably over the past twenty years. The value and growth investing concept has drawn much attention and continues to dominate portfolio management. Factor investing is an approach that aims at quantifying particular characteristics through matrixes of quality, value, momentum, and growth to improve the returns of a portfolio. Although the three-factor style of investing has gained widespread acceptance, the five-factor continues to be a source of disagreement among academics and industry practitioners. This study aimed to review the merits of five-factor investing critically. A critical literature review was used to review prior literature. The narratives from the literature reveal that the five-factor investing style will result in multiple sources of expected return. Hence, using five factors in portfolio formation has merits and will significantly improve the returns and most likely outperform the market portfolio. Factor premiums have proven to be drivers of asset return. Therefore, market participants and investment managers can intentionally assume additional exposures to deliver superior risk-adjusted returns compared to the market with the five-factor investing style. According to the author's knowledge, this is the first study to objectively analyze the literature on five-factor investing and propose that active managers can earn positive alphas on a risk-adjusted basis through factor exposures.
The debate on whether stock prices follow a random walk continues, becoming the foundation of modern portfolio theory. Supporters of the random walk theory still believe that modeling stock prices is a wasteful exercise. However, evidence from momentum pricing strategy and price reversals suggests otherwise. This study aimed to empirically explore the random walk theory in five international stock markets before and during the Covid-19 pandemic from June 30, 2017, to June 30, 2019, and January 1, 2020, to December 31, 2021. A multivariate runs test and a generalised distribution function was applied to investigate the theory. The results revealed no significant difference between the observed S-statistics runs and the expected ones, concluding that it is not common to observe random walks in financial markets consistently. Hence price changes in financial markets are significantly affected not only based on new information and investors’ expectations but also by irrationalities that exist among market participants. These irrationalities can be modeled using a generalised distribution function to produce price patterns.
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 |