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: 7 / 7 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 00:14 UTC — 21 Oct 2026 07:22 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.
6 / 7 with data · 1 missing or unmatched. Percentages use all 7 selected publications.
6 / 7 with data · 1 missing or unmatched. Percentages use all 7 selected publications.
7 / 7 with data · 0 missing or unmatched. Percentages use all 7 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2020 | All selected publications | 1 | 1 | 1/1 | 1/1 |
| 2021 | All selected publications | 1 | 1 | 1/1 | 1/1 |
| 2022 | All selected publications | 2 | 2 | 2/2 | 2/2 |
| 2023 | All selected publications | 1 | 1 | 1/1 | 1/1 |
| 2024 | All selected publications | 1 | 1 | 1/1 | 1/1 |
| 2025 | All selected publications | 0 | 0 | 0/0 | 0/0 |
| 2026 | All selected publications | 1 | 1 | 1/1 | 1/1 |
| Publication year | Journal / scope | Crossref citations | Publications | Crossref known | OpenAlex known |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2020 | All selected publications | 5 | 1 | 1/1 | 1/1 |
| 2021 | All selected publications | 7 | 1 | 1/1 | 1/1 |
| 2022 | All selected publications | 3 | 2 | 2/2 | 2/2 |
| 2023 | All selected publications | 1 | 1 | 1/1 | 1/1 |
| 2024 | All selected publications | 2 | 1 | 1/1 | 1/1 |
| 2025 | All selected publications | — | 0 | 0/0 | 0/0 |
| 2026 | All selected publications | 0 | 1 | 1/1 | 1/1 |
| Publication year | Journal / scope | OpenAlex citations | Publications | Crossref known | OpenAlex known |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2020 | All selected publications | 6 | 1 | 1/1 | 1/1 |
| 2021 | All selected publications | 13 | 1 | 1/1 | 1/1 |
| 2022 | All selected publications | 8 | 2 | 2/2 | 2/2 |
| 2023 | All selected publications | 1 | 1 | 1/1 | 1/1 |
| 2024 | All selected publications | 3 | 1 | 1/1 | 1/1 |
| 2025 | All selected publications | — | 0 | 0/0 | 0/0 |
| 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 7 / 7 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): 2026-10-21T00:14:28.547990+00:00 — 2026-10-21T07:22:57.146485+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 | 7 | 7/7 |
| 2018 | All selected publications | 0 | 7 | 7/7 |
| 2019 | All selected publications | 0 | 7 | 7/7 |
| 2020 | All selected publications | 0 | 7 | 7/7 |
| 2021 | All selected publications | 2 | 7 | 7/7 |
| 2022 | All selected publications | 5 | 7 | 7/7 |
| 2023 | All selected publications | 7 | 7 | 7/7 |
| 2024 | All selected publications | 6 | 7 | 7/7 |
| 2025 | All selected publications | 11 | 7 | 7/7 |
| 2026 | All selected publications | 0 | 7 | 7/7 |
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 |
|---|---|
| 2020 | 1 |
| 2021 | 1 |
| 2022 | 2 |
| 2023 | 1 |
| 2024 | 1 |
| 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 Business Ecosystem & Strategy Bussecon International Academy | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2/2 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 50.0 | 2/2 · 100.0% |
| International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science SSBFNET | 5 | 17 | 30 | 5/5 | 3.4 | 2 | 100.0 | 5/5 · 100.0% |
* Percentage among publications with a known citation count.
There are many forms of academic cheating that occur among students, especially the practice of cheating. There are many factors that encourage students' academic cheating practices, especially with the aim of getting a targeted high score. Therefore, the researcher tries to find out the factors that influence the actions of academic cheating among students by referring to the fraud triangle theory which is relevant to the theme of this research. The variables observed in this study were: pressure (X1), opportunity (X2), rationalization (X3), misuse of information technology (X4), and student integrity (X5) as independent variables (independent), while the dependent variable (dependent) used behavior academic cheating on students (Y). This study used an instrument in the form of an open questionnaire with a Likert scale. The population that took as many as 500 accounting students, UM, and samples collected as many as 30 samples that have been filtered according to the criteria (purposive sampling). Analysis of the data used is multiple linear regression analysis. The results show that simultaneously, the variables of pressure, opportunity, rationalization, misuse of information technology, and student integrity have an influence on student academic fraud. The partial test shows that only the misuse of information technology has an effect on academic cheating of accounting students, ME, while the other variables have no significant effect. This is because when students learn online during the Covid-19 pandemic, they are able to take advantage of technological sophistication in this globalization era, especially in the current industry 4.0 era to carry out academic cheating actions that are oriented towards targeted values (GPA).
This letter examines the ethics of a “sting” paper submitted by Dr. Albana Berisha Qehaja, a faculty member of the Department of Management and Informatics, Faculty of Economy, University of Prishtina, Republic of Kosovo. In that paper, which stung this journal, IJRBS, Dr. Qehaja created a fake paper, with a fake name and fake institutional affiliation, as well as specially crafted email and ORCID accounts to masquerade the identity of the true author of the fake paper, namely Dr. Qehaja. Such behavior is not only an act of extreme scholarly malpractice, it is one of the most unethical behaviors in academic publishing because it violates all of the journal’s and international ethics’ practices for submission of a paper to a journal. Other academics thinking of employing such unethical tactics for any publishing-related objective should reconsider their options and carefully calculate the ethical, legal, and possibly criminal consequences of such actions
Writing and publishing scientific and rigorous work needs a high level of integrity and adherence to ethical guidelines. Several publications have been rejected by authentic journals as a result of not adhering to a deontological standpoint. This laxity has posed deadly repercussions to the beholder including ruining its institutional image in academic scholarship. Notwithstanding, numerous writers are acquainted with the consequences of not observing ethical standards in research and publication, yet in trying to put up their pieces of work get caught in the same quandary. Anchored on a thematically oriented review of literature, it was imperative to try to explain the key ethical misconduct bases in research and publication. To fulfil this quest many journal articles were analysed. It was found that numerous aspects form the basis for misconduct in research and publication including; the pressure to ‘publish or perish’, the limitation of mentorship and guidance programs, knowledge on research and publication, promotion and academic advancement, competition among colleagues, workload pressure, financial motives, pressure from individual morality, and the challenge of research culture. Consequently, it is imperative to note that to publish a scholarly piece of work, adhering to ethical standards is non-negotiable.
Academic fraud is all actions committed by students in devious ways to gain personal gain. Therefore, of course, academic fraud is very detrimental. The purpose of this study is to find out the influence of the Pentagon's fraud dimension, namely academic pressure, opportunity, rationalization, ability, and personal ethics, on the behavior of academic fraud students. The population in this study were students of accounting study programs at Khairun University and Hein Namotemo Halmahera University of North Halmahera, Ternate, Indonesia, who were registered in the academic year 2020/2021 and attended face-to-face lectures. The entire population in the study was used as a unit of analysis. The data in this study is primary data using questionnaires tested with Smart PLS analysis tools. Data analysis methods use descriptive analysis and multiple linear regression analysis. The results showed that academic pressure, rationalization, and ability influence academic fraud. In comparison, Opportunity and Personal Ethics do not affect academic fraud.
This study sought to analyse the role of the South African Qualifications Authority in curbing the misrepresentation of qualifications. Academic degrees are highly valued throughout the globe because they are seen as a dependable and trusted proxy for the bearers' knowledge, abilities and skills. In the same vein, the higher education system in South Africa makes every effort to generate well-qualified graduates who are capable of assisting in the leadership of the country's socio-economic growth. Recent reports in the media, on the other hand, create the impression that this initiative is being hampered by the widespread use of counterfeit, phoney and other illegitimate credentials. Consequently, the reputation of the South African Qualifications Authority (SAQA) is in grave danger as a result of the increasing prevalence of dishonestly misrepresented qualifications in both the public and private sectors. The education system is also at risk of losing its credibility as a result of actions involving deception, which is a subject that has to be addressed at the highest levels possible. Notably, the public service in South Africa is making significant progress towards the goal of ensuring that individuals who misrepresent their qualifications are barred from ever working in the public sector again. In this regard, SAQA plays an important role by offering verification services to individuals who are interested in applying for jobs in the public sector. Thus, this study contributes to the literature on credentialism and qualifications from the developing world with specific reference to South Africa.
AI-enabled assessment technologies are increasingly used by higher education institutions to protect academic integrity, scale online assessment and respond strategically to generative artificial intelligence. This paper examines how online proctoring, automated scoring, AI writing detection, and learning analytics risk flagging reshape institutional governance, stakeholder trust, and assessment strategy in higher education business ecosystems. Using a systematic-narrative review approach informed by PRISMA 2020 reporting principles, the study synthesises peer-reviewed literature and authoritative policy guidance published between 2015 and 2025. The analysis is organised around an integrated theoretical framework that combines assessment validity, academic integrity values, algorithmic accountability, and ecosystem strategy. The findings show that AI-enabled assessment can support identity verification, monitoring capacity, workflow triage and timely feedback when deployed as human-governed decision support rather than automated adjudication. However, over-reliance on surveillance and detection creates strategic risks: false positives, bias against linguistically diverse students, privacy intrusion, opaque decision-making, weakened due process and construct distortion when assessments measure surveillance compliance instead of intended learning outcomes. The review further shows that institutional legitimacy depends less on the technical promise of tools and more on governance capability, including proportionality, transparency, contestability, equity auditing, privacy protection and authentic assessment redesign. The paper contributes to business ecosystem and strategy scholarship by positioning academic integrity technology as a strategic governance issue within higher education service ecosystems. It recommends integrity-by-design, cross-functional AI governance, vendor accountability and assessment strategies that preserve fairness, validity and stakeholder trust.
Writing and publishing scientific and rigorous work needs a high level of integrity and adherence to ethical guidelines. Several publications have been rejected by authentic journals as a result of not adhering to a deontological standpoint. This laxity has posed deadly repercussions to the beholder including ruining its institutional image in academic scholarship. Notwithstanding, numerous writers are acquainted with the consequences of not observing ethical standards in research and publication, yet in trying to put up their pieces of work get caught in the same quandary. Anchored on a thematically oriented review of literature, it was imperative to try to explain the key ethical misconduct bases in research and publication. To fulfil this quest many journal articles were analysed. It was found that numerous aspects form the basis for misconduct in research and publication including; the pressure to ‘publish or perish’, the limitation of mentorship and guidance programs, knowledge on research and publication, promotion and academic advancement, competition among colleagues, workload pressure, financial motives, pressure from individual morality, and the challenge of research culture. Consequently, it is imperative to note that to publish a scholarly piece of work, adhering to ethical standards is non-negotiable.
In the pursuit of academic excellence, scholars are dependent on trustworthy journals to disseminate their research and contribute to the collective body of knowledge. However, the academic community is not immune to deceptive practices. This letter highlights the case of the "Global International Journal of Innovative Research," where my name, along with esteemed colleagues, was falsely associated with the editorial board without consent. Despite repeated efforts to address this issue, the journal remains unresponsive. This letter announces our intention to publish an exposé article, meticulously uncovering the fraudulent practices of the journal and its publisher. A subsequent public statement aims to warn the academic community about the deceptive nature of the "Global International Journal of Innovative Research" and emphasizes the collective responsibility of scholars to uphold ethical publishing standards. Through this exposé, we hope to safeguard the integrity of academic pursuit and raise awareness about the risks associated with engaging with predatory journals.
This study sought to analyse the role of the South African Qualifications Authority in curbing the misrepresentation of qualifications. Academic degrees are highly valued throughout the globe because they are seen as a dependable and trusted proxy for the bearers' knowledge, abilities and skills. In the same vein, the higher education system in South Africa makes every effort to generate well-qualified graduates who are capable of assisting in the leadership of the country's socio-economic growth. Recent reports in the media, on the other hand, create the impression that this initiative is being hampered by the widespread use of counterfeit, phoney and other illegitimate credentials. Consequently, the reputation of the South African Qualifications Authority (SAQA) is in grave danger as a result of the increasing prevalence of dishonestly misrepresented qualifications in both the public and private sectors. The education system is also at risk of losing its credibility as a result of actions involving deception, which is a subject that has to be addressed at the highest levels possible. Notably, the public service in South Africa is making significant progress towards the goal of ensuring that individuals who misrepresent their qualifications are barred from ever working in the public sector again. In this regard, SAQA plays an important role by offering verification services to individuals who are interested in applying for jobs in the public sector. Thus, this study contributes to the literature on credentialism and qualifications from the developing world with specific reference to South Africa.
Academic fraud is all actions committed by students in devious ways to gain personal gain. Therefore, of course, academic fraud is very detrimental. The purpose of this study is to find out the influence of the Pentagon's fraud dimension, namely academic pressure, opportunity, rationalization, ability, and personal ethics, on the behavior of academic fraud students. The population in this study were students of accounting study programs at Khairun University and Hein Namotemo Halmahera University of North Halmahera, Ternate, Indonesia, who were registered in the academic year 2020/2021 and attended face-to-face lectures. The entire population in the study was used as a unit of analysis. The data in this study is primary data using questionnaires tested with Smart PLS analysis tools. Data analysis methods use descriptive analysis and multiple linear regression analysis. The results showed that academic pressure, rationalization, and ability influence academic fraud. In comparison, Opportunity and Personal Ethics do not affect academic fraud.
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 |