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 07:23 UTC — 22 Oct 2026 10:53 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 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): 2026-10-21T07:23:08.179116+00:00 — 2026-10-22T10:53:36.547000+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 | 0 | 3 | 3/3 |
| 2026 | All selected publications | 0 | 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 |
|---|---|
| 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 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1/1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 | 1/1 · 100.0% |
| International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science SSBFNET | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2/2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 2/2 · 100.0% |
* Percentage among publications with a known citation count.
Blended learning has emerged as a transformative approach in higher education, yet for many lecturers, the rapid integration of digital tools has created more challenges than opportunities. This study aimed to critically evaluate how lecturers at a University of Technology perceive and integrate digital tools and teaching strategies within blended learning environments, addressing a gap in the literature on lecturer-centred, contextually grounded perspectives in South African Universities of Technology. Adopting a qualitative research approach within an interpretivist paradigm, the study employed a case study design, involving twelve purposively sampled lecturers who actively engage with blended learning. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews and analysed using thematic analysis, ensuring rich, context-sensitive insights. The findings revealed a spectrum of practices: some lecturers primarily used digital tools for content delivery, while others employed innovative, student-centred strategies aligned with TPACK and Community of Inquiry frameworks, demonstrating enhanced cognitive, social, and teaching presence. Institutional factors, including professional development, infrastructure, and peer support, were found to significantly influence pedagogical decision-making. The study contributes to the understanding of blended learning in South African higher education by highlighting the interplay between lecturer agency, pedagogical reasoning, and institutional support, and it recommends targeted professional development, strategic infrastructural support, and the promotion of collaborative communities of practice to enhance effective blended teaching.
This paper aims to explore technological knowledge as a prerequisite for effective e-tutorship in an Open Distance e-Learning (ODeL) institution. In this paper, it is also aimed to examine how e-tutors' technological proficiency influences their engagement with students through the Learning Management System (LMS). A quantitative research approach was employed to address the research question with data collected through an observation technique tool conceptualized by the researcher. This tool tracked e-tutor engagement in the Learning Management System (LMS), specifically focusing on the frequency and types of interactions with students. The observation examined how technological proficiency affects online educational engagement by counting e-tutor postings and student reactions. The quantity of postings on each e-tutor's dashboard and student reactions were the main contextual factors analyzed. The study found that tutor engagement levels depend on technological competence, which affects e-tutors' capacity to conduct discussions and encourage student learning. The LMS data demonstrated that tutors with advanced technological competencies exhibited higher interaction rates, fostering an active and collaborative learning environment. Conversely, limited technological proficiency among tutors correlated with reduced engagement, potentially affecting students’ learning experiences. These findings point to the importance of technological knowledge in enhancing e-tutorship effectiveness within ODeL institutions. The study recommends targeted professional development programs to strengthen e-tutors’ digital competencies, ultimately improving student support and learning outcomes in online education settings.
In the post COVId-19 era, online education has become an integral part of higher education, underscoring the need to understand students’ experiences, satisfaction and preferences to inform institutional strategies for optimising online education. The study follows a quantitative survey approach in which an online cross-sectional descriptive study was undertaken among 295 purposively selected students’ in South African higher education institution. A self-administered validated online questionnaire was used for data collection. Data was analysed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS. Descriptive statistics was used to determine the reliability of the various constructs, mean scores, and standard deviations. Students found online teaching enjoyable (54.9%), (55.1%) engaging, with the opportunity to ask questions. Findings can inform HEIs’ managers and leaders’ strategic decisions regarding online education, including investment in infrastructure, faculty training, and support services. Creating interactive and engaging online content such as videos, simulations, and gamification to enhance student engagement. Providing online orientation, technical support and troubleshooting services to address technical issues and ensure smooth online learning experiences.
Blended learning has emerged as a transformative approach in higher education, yet for many lecturers, the rapid integration of digital tools has created more challenges than opportunities. This study aimed to critically evaluate how lecturers at a University of Technology perceive and integrate digital tools and teaching strategies within blended learning environments, addressing a gap in the literature on lecturer-centred, contextually grounded perspectives in South African Universities of Technology. Adopting a qualitative research approach within an interpretivist paradigm, the study employed a case study design, involving twelve purposively sampled lecturers who actively engage with blended learning. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews and analysed using thematic analysis, ensuring rich, context-sensitive insights. The findings revealed a spectrum of practices: some lecturers primarily used digital tools for content delivery, while others employed innovative, student-centred strategies aligned with TPACK and Community of Inquiry frameworks, demonstrating enhanced cognitive, social, and teaching presence. Institutional factors, including professional development, infrastructure, and peer support, were found to significantly influence pedagogical decision-making. The study contributes to the understanding of blended learning in South African higher education by highlighting the interplay between lecturer agency, pedagogical reasoning, and institutional support, and it recommends targeted professional development, strategic infrastructural support, and the promotion of collaborative communities of practice to enhance effective blended teaching.
In the post COVId-19 era, online education has become an integral part of higher education, underscoring the need to understand students’ experiences, satisfaction and preferences to inform institutional strategies for optimising online education. The study follows a quantitative survey approach in which an online cross-sectional descriptive study was undertaken among 295 purposively selected students’ in South African higher education institution. A self-administered validated online questionnaire was used for data collection. Data was analysed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS. Descriptive statistics was used to determine the reliability of the various constructs, mean scores, and standard deviations. Students found online teaching enjoyable (54.9%), (55.1%) engaging, with the opportunity to ask questions. Findings can inform HEIs’ managers and leaders’ strategic decisions regarding online education, including investment in infrastructure, faculty training, and support services. Creating interactive and engaging online content such as videos, simulations, and gamification to enhance student engagement. Providing online orientation, technical support and troubleshooting services to address technical issues and ensure smooth online learning experiences.
This paper aims to explore technological knowledge as a prerequisite for effective e-tutorship in an Open Distance e-Learning (ODeL) institution. In this paper, it is also aimed to examine how e-tutors' technological proficiency influences their engagement with students through the Learning Management System (LMS). A quantitative research approach was employed to address the research question with data collected through an observation technique tool conceptualized by the researcher. This tool tracked e-tutor engagement in the Learning Management System (LMS), specifically focusing on the frequency and types of interactions with students. The observation examined how technological proficiency affects online educational engagement by counting e-tutor postings and student reactions. The quantity of postings on each e-tutor's dashboard and student reactions were the main contextual factors analyzed. The study found that tutor engagement levels depend on technological competence, which affects e-tutors' capacity to conduct discussions and encourage student learning. The LMS data demonstrated that tutors with advanced technological competencies exhibited higher interaction rates, fostering an active and collaborative learning environment. Conversely, limited technological proficiency among tutors correlated with reduced engagement, potentially affecting students’ learning experiences. These findings point to the importance of technological knowledge in enhancing e-tutorship effectiveness within ODeL institutions. The study recommends targeted professional development programs to strengthen e-tutors’ digital competencies, ultimately improving student support and learning outcomes in online education settings.
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 |