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 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.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 1 | 1 | 1/1 | 1/1 |
| 2025 | All selected publications | 1 | 1 | 1/1 | 1/1 |
| Publication year | Journal / scope | Crossref citations | Publications | Crossref known | OpenAlex known |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2020 | All selected publications | 0 | 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 | 1 | 1 | 1/1 | 1/1 |
| 2025 | All selected publications | 0 | 1 | 1/1 | 1/1 |
| Publication year | Journal / scope | OpenAlex citations | Publications | Crossref known | OpenAlex known |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2020 | All selected publications | 1 | 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 | 1 | 1 | 1/1 | 1/1 |
| 2025 | 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 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): 2026-10-21T00:14:31.426201+00:00 — 2026-10-21T07:22:59.236408+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 | 1 | 3 | 3/3 |
| 2023 | All selected publications | 0 | 3 | 3/3 |
| 2024 | All selected publications | 0 | 3 | 3/3 |
| 2025 | All selected publications | 1 | 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 |
|---|---|
| 2020 | 1 |
| 2024 | 1 |
| 2025 | 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 | 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 | 1 | 2 | 2/2 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 50.0 | 2/2 · 100.0% |
* Percentage among publications with a known citation count.
This study investigated the instructional methods used in the correctional school and during rehabilitation programmes at the Johannesburg Female Correctional Centre in Johannesburg, South Africa. It further explored how those instructional methods influence offenders' learning experiences. Anchored in the positivism paradigm, a quantitative approach was followed, and a cross-sectional survey design was used. The enumeration sampling technique was used due to the small size of the population (n = 571). Data were collected from 402 participants who were sentenced offenders, yielding a response rate of 70.40%. A Kolb Learning Style Inventory was used to collect data. Version 26.0.0 of the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) was used to analyze data. Descriptive and inferential statistics were computed as part of data analysis. The results show that during classes and during rehabilitation programmes, classroom discussion was the most common instructional method, and this was found to be appropriate to the participants’ learning experiences. Lecturing was the second most used instructional method for both the Correctional Centre school and the rehabilitation programmes. It was also found to be relevant to the participants’ learning experiences. It is recommended that the Johannesburg Female Correctional Centre formulate and implement a strategy that seeks to deliberately provide variations of instructional methods to accommodate different learning styles if these do not compromise the security within the facility. Teachers/facilitators can use varied techniques to stimulate offenders’ enthusiasm and participation during the sessions. It is further recommended that the Department of Correctional Services should offer professional development opportunities for educators to develop capacity to utilise diverse teaching techniques and create feedback mechanisms to assess instructional effectiveness for offenders. The Department of Correctional Service must further consider developing a framework for monitoring instructional effectiveness or guidelines for integrating new teaching techniques.
This study presents a review of the Quality of Higher Education through the incidence of learning styles. The quality is important l element the private sector, as well as for the public sector since it evaluates services, supply and working conditions, and the relationship with the environment where they carry out their activities. Therefore, higher education organizations cannot be exempt from the importance of quality. However, there are several factors that affect the quality of education, being one of the most important learning styles. Generally, from this background, the main objective of this study to define the role and quality concepts of higher education the analysis of the key aspects of quality assurance and its relationship with student learning styles, by briefly reviewing the literature in this regard that allows for defining this relationship and its importance. The results showed through these studies that there is no single style of learning, and that this must be flexible within the classroom to improve the educational experience of students, but that this cannot lead to the choice of a single style considered as suitable.
This study explored the instructional media used in the correctional school and during rehabilitation programmes at the Johannesburg Female Correctional Centre and the preferences of offenders. Underpinned by the positivism paradigm, a quantitative approach was followed, and a cross-sectional survey design was used. The enumeration sampling technique was used due to the small size of the population (n = 571). Data were collected from 402 participants who were sentenced offenders, thus yielding a response rate of 70.40%. A Kolb Learning Style Questionnaire was used to collect data. Version 26.0.0 of the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) was used to analyse data. Descriptive and inferential statistics were computed as part of data analysis. The findings of this study revealed that offenders at the Johannesburg Female Correctional Centre rely on teachers and chalkboard as the dominant media for instruction and that these have been used in the educational or schooling environment for many years. The Johannesburg Female Correctional Centre prefers using teacher and chalkboard instructional mediums, possibly to maintain security in the facility. Based on the findings it is recommended that Johannesburg Female Correctional Centre formulates and implements a strategy that seeks to deliberately provide variations of instructional media/mediums to accommodate different learning styles during the school lessons and rehabilitation programmes, as long as these do not affect the security within the facility.
This study explored the instructional media used in the correctional school and during rehabilitation programmes at the Johannesburg Female Correctional Centre and the preferences of offenders. Underpinned by the positivism paradigm, a quantitative approach was followed, and a cross-sectional survey design was used. The enumeration sampling technique was used due to the small size of the population (n = 571). Data were collected from 402 participants who were sentenced offenders, thus yielding a response rate of 70.40%. A Kolb Learning Style Questionnaire was used to collect data. Version 26.0.0 of the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) was used to analyse data. Descriptive and inferential statistics were computed as part of data analysis. The findings of this study revealed that offenders at the Johannesburg Female Correctional Centre rely on teachers and chalkboard as the dominant media for instruction and that these have been used in the educational or schooling environment for many years. The Johannesburg Female Correctional Centre prefers using teacher and chalkboard instructional mediums, possibly to maintain security in the facility. Based on the findings it is recommended that Johannesburg Female Correctional Centre formulates and implements a strategy that seeks to deliberately provide variations of instructional media/mediums to accommodate different learning styles during the school lessons and rehabilitation programmes, as long as these do not affect the security within the facility.
This study investigated the instructional methods used in the correctional school and during rehabilitation programmes at the Johannesburg Female Correctional Centre in Johannesburg, South Africa. It further explored how those instructional methods influence offenders' learning experiences. Anchored in the positivism paradigm, a quantitative approach was followed, and a cross-sectional survey design was used. The enumeration sampling technique was used due to the small size of the population (n = 571). Data were collected from 402 participants who were sentenced offenders, yielding a response rate of 70.40%. A Kolb Learning Style Inventory was used to collect data. Version 26.0.0 of the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) was used to analyze data. Descriptive and inferential statistics were computed as part of data analysis. The results show that during classes and during rehabilitation programmes, classroom discussion was the most common instructional method, and this was found to be appropriate to the participants’ learning experiences. Lecturing was the second most used instructional method for both the Correctional Centre school and the rehabilitation programmes. It was also found to be relevant to the participants’ learning experiences. It is recommended that the Johannesburg Female Correctional Centre formulate and implement a strategy that seeks to deliberately provide variations of instructional methods to accommodate different learning styles if these do not compromise the security within the facility. Teachers/facilitators can use varied techniques to stimulate offenders’ enthusiasm and participation during the sessions. It is further recommended that the Department of Correctional Services should offer professional development opportunities for educators to develop capacity to utilise diverse teaching techniques and create feedback mechanisms to assess instructional effectiveness for offenders. The Department of Correctional Service must further consider developing a framework for monitoring instructional effectiveness or guidelines for integrating new teaching techniques.
This study presents a review of the Quality of Higher Education through the incidence of learning styles. The quality is important l element the private sector, as well as for the public sector since it evaluates services, supply and working conditions, and the relationship with the environment where they carry out their activities. Therefore, higher education organizations cannot be exempt from the importance of quality. However, there are several factors that affect the quality of education, being one of the most important learning styles. Generally, from this background, the main objective of this study to define the role and quality concepts of higher education the analysis of the key aspects of quality assurance and its relationship with student learning styles, by briefly reviewing the literature in this regard that allows for defining this relationship and its importance. The results showed through these studies that there is no single style of learning, and that this must be flexible within the classroom to improve the educational experience of students, but that this cannot lead to the choice of a single style considered as suitable.
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 |