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: 6 / 6 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 07:23 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 / 6 with data · 0 missing or unmatched. Percentages use all 6 selected publications.
6 / 6 with data · 0 missing or unmatched. Percentages use all 6 selected publications.
6 / 6 with data · 0 missing or unmatched. Percentages use all 6 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 | 1 | 1 | 1/1 | 1/1 |
| 2024 | All selected publications | 1 | 1 | 1/1 | 1/1 |
| 2025 | All selected publications | 3 | 3 | 3/3 | 3/3 |
| 2026 | All selected publications | 1 | 1 | 1/1 | 1/1 |
| Publication year | Journal / scope | Crossref citations | Publications | Crossref known | OpenAlex known |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2023 | All selected publications | 1 | 1 | 1/1 | 1/1 |
| 2024 | All selected publications | 4 | 1 | 1/1 | 1/1 |
| 2025 | All selected publications | 4 | 3 | 3/3 | 3/3 |
| 2026 | All selected publications | 0 | 1 | 1/1 | 1/1 |
| Publication year | Journal / scope | OpenAlex citations | Publications | Crossref known | OpenAlex known |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2023 | All selected publications | 1 | 1 | 1/1 | 1/1 |
| 2024 | All selected publications | 4 | 1 | 1/1 | 1/1 |
| 2025 | All selected publications | 4 | 3 | 3/3 | 3/3 |
| 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 6 / 6 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): 2026-10-21T00:14:32.887988+00:00 — 2026-10-21T07:23:05.151058+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 | 6 | 6/6 |
| 2018 | All selected publications | 0 | 6 | 6/6 |
| 2019 | All selected publications | 0 | 6 | 6/6 |
| 2020 | All selected publications | 0 | 6 | 6/6 |
| 2021 | All selected publications | 0 | 6 | 6/6 |
| 2022 | All selected publications | 0 | 6 | 6/6 |
| 2023 | All selected publications | 0 | 6 | 6/6 |
| 2024 | All selected publications | 0 | 6 | 6/6 |
| 2025 | All selected publications | 2 | 6 | 6/6 |
| 2026 | All selected publications | 7 | 6 | 6/6 |
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 | 1 |
| 2024 | 1 |
| 2025 | 3 |
| 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 | 1 | 4 | 4 | 1/1 | 4.0 | 4 | 100.0 | 1/1 · 100.0% |
| International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science SSBFNET | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5/5 | 1.0 | 0 | 40.0 | 5/5 · 100.0% |
* Percentage among publications with a known citation count.
This qualitative study investigated the forte of load-shedding on the gains of digital technology integration in a selected South African university in Gauteng province. This case study made use of interviews which were conducted using MS Teams among 8 lecturers and 8 students that were selected purposefully. The interpretive paradigm was used to understand the participants’ plight in the reversal of gains that load-shedding continues to bring in their university post-COVID-19 outbreak. The complexity theory was used to underpin the study and the main findings revealed through themes that both the students and lecturers struggle with the learning and teaching activities that need digital tools because of the persistence of load-shedding that affect innovation and skill impartation. It was also revealed that modems that are used as internet sources fail to function during load-shedding because the network is often affected when lights are off. The study recommends that South African universities should invest in renewable energy and resort to an uninterruptible power supply to keep the lights on. All the role-players of ESKOM need to pull in one direction to have a lasting solution that should keep the lights on for digital tools to keep working.
This study conducts a thorough analysis of contemporary literature (2020–2025) regarding the impact of digital globalisation on educational inequality in South Africa's marginalised regions, focussing on the interrelated aspects of access, infrastructure, and pedagogy. This systematic literature review synthesises evidence from worldwide and South African contexts to demonstrate how enduring inequities in broadband access, affordability, and institutional capability hinder fair participation in digital learning. Rural provinces like Limpopo and Eastern Cape continue to be disproportionately impacted by inadequate connectivity, elevated data expenses, and insufficient teacher digital knowledge. The results reveal three primary themes: (1) physical and socio-economic obstacles to access, (2) infrastructural and institutional limitations, and (3) educational deficiencies stemming from culturally insensitive digital design. The paper presents a three-dimensional equity paradigm that integrates these domains to inform inclusive digital education policy. It advocates for infrastructure expansion, ongoing affordability initiatives, comprehensive digital literacy training, and legislative frameworks that incorporate equity criteria to guarantee that digital globalisation fosters change rather than exclusion within South Africa's educational system.
The rapid advancements in Information and Communication Technology (ICT) have significantly transformed the landscape of education, impacting both learning and teaching processes. The use of ICT in learning and teaching have changed the whole concept of education and had proved to be of great benefit for both the student and the lecturer. This paper draws from students and lecturers’ reflections on the use of ICT in learning and teaching environments in one South African University. An interpretive qualitative approach was adopted to conduct this study. Semi-structured interviews were conducted to collect data from six participants which constituted five students and one lecturer, and the thematic phenomenological analysis was used to analyse data. Findings revealed that the use of ICT in learning and teaching environments in have enhanced learning experiences, access to information and resources, collaborative learning opportunities, personalized learning among students and enhanced lecturer professional development in the university. The study recommended that education institutions should prioritize the allocation of resources for infrastructure development. Technology should be used purposefully to enhance teaching and learning, rather than integrated for its own sake. Lecturer’s must align their pedagogies with technology as suggested by TPACK theory.
In the quiet rural corners of South Africa, where digital signals fade and determination endures, women continue to chase the promise of education through screens they can barely access. This paper aims to evaluate the effects of digital exclusion on the educational participation and success of rural South African women in Open Distance and Electronic Learning (ODEL) institutions. It is also aimed at demonstrating how intersecting factors such as gender, geography, cultural expectations, and socioeconomic inequalities shape their engagement with online higher education. The study employed a qualitative analytical method, supported by thematic coding, to interpret in-depth interviews conducted with eighteen (18) female students enrolled in ODEL programmes across KwaZulu-Natal, Limpopo, and the Eastern Cape. This dataset offered nuanced insights into the lived realities of women navigating learning under resource-scarce, patriarchal, and digitally disconnected environments. Findings of the study demonstrate that (i) ODEL systems often assume digital fluency and urban connectivity, inadvertently excluding rural learners; (ii) the lack of culturally responsive and localised support structures intensifies academic isolation, emotional fatigue, and technological disadvantage; and finally, (iii) rural women exhibit extraordinary resilience and agency, yet remain structurally invisible in institutional policy frameworks. The study concludes that achieving true equity in South Africa’s ODEL landscape requires a shift towards hybrid, humanized learning models that integrate offline academic support, vernacular communication, and community-based mentorship. By centring the voices of rural women, this paper challenges prevailing assumptions about access, inclusion, and digital justice in higher education.
Despite extensive research on the impact of educational technology in enhancing the quality of teaching, learning, and learner academic achievement, there remains a notable lack of research focusing on teachers’ perspectives regarding the role of technology in addressing educational inequities. Using South Africa as a case study, this qualitative investigation sought to explore South African teachers’ views on the perceived role of educational technology in promoting educational equity. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with four purposefully selected teachers from public schools in South Africa. The thematic findings indicated that the participants believed educational technology holds the potential to significantly contribute to the redress of educational inequities by expanding access to information and resources, improving the quality and efficiency of education, and catering to diverse learner preferences. However, participants also expressed concern that technology could potentially worsen existing disparities rooted in socioeconomic status. They emphasized the importance of equitable access to technological infrastructure. This study provides insights into the complex relationship between educational technology and equity within the South African context and underscores the importance of incorporating teachers’ perspectives in the implementation of technology-driven initiatives intended to eliminate educational inequalities.
In the quiet rural corners of South Africa, where digital signals fade and determination endures, women continue to chase the promise of education through screens they can barely access. This paper aims to evaluate the effects of digital exclusion on the educational participation and success of rural South African women in Open Distance and Electronic Learning (ODEL) institutions. It is also aimed at demonstrating how intersecting factors such as gender, geography, cultural expectations, and socioeconomic inequalities shape their engagement with online higher education. The study employed a qualitative analytical method, supported by thematic coding, to interpret in-depth interviews conducted with eighteen (18) female students enrolled in ODEL programmes across KwaZulu-Natal, Limpopo, and the Eastern Cape. This dataset offered nuanced insights into the lived realities of women navigating learning under resource-scarce, patriarchal, and digitally disconnected environments. Findings of the study demonstrate that (i) ODEL systems often assume digital fluency and urban connectivity, inadvertently excluding rural learners; (ii) the lack of culturally responsive and localised support structures intensifies academic isolation, emotional fatigue, and technological disadvantage; and finally, (iii) rural women exhibit extraordinary resilience and agency, yet remain structurally invisible in institutional policy frameworks. The study concludes that achieving true equity in South Africa’s ODEL landscape requires a shift towards hybrid, humanized learning models that integrate offline academic support, vernacular communication, and community-based mentorship. By centring the voices of rural women, this paper challenges prevailing assumptions about access, inclusion, and digital justice in higher education.
This study conducts a thorough analysis of contemporary literature (2020–2025) regarding the impact of digital globalisation on educational inequality in South Africa's marginalised regions, focussing on the interrelated aspects of access, infrastructure, and pedagogy. This systematic literature review synthesises evidence from worldwide and South African contexts to demonstrate how enduring inequities in broadband access, affordability, and institutional capability hinder fair participation in digital learning. Rural provinces like Limpopo and Eastern Cape continue to be disproportionately impacted by inadequate connectivity, elevated data expenses, and insufficient teacher digital knowledge. The results reveal three primary themes: (1) physical and socio-economic obstacles to access, (2) infrastructural and institutional limitations, and (3) educational deficiencies stemming from culturally insensitive digital design. The paper presents a three-dimensional equity paradigm that integrates these domains to inform inclusive digital education policy. It advocates for infrastructure expansion, ongoing affordability initiatives, comprehensive digital literacy training, and legislative frameworks that incorporate equity criteria to guarantee that digital globalisation fosters change rather than exclusion within South Africa's educational system.
Despite extensive research on the impact of educational technology in enhancing the quality of teaching, learning, and learner academic achievement, there remains a notable lack of research focusing on teachers’ perspectives regarding the role of technology in addressing educational inequities. Using South Africa as a case study, this qualitative investigation sought to explore South African teachers’ views on the perceived role of educational technology in promoting educational equity. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with four purposefully selected teachers from public schools in South Africa. The thematic findings indicated that the participants believed educational technology holds the potential to significantly contribute to the redress of educational inequities by expanding access to information and resources, improving the quality and efficiency of education, and catering to diverse learner preferences. However, participants also expressed concern that technology could potentially worsen existing disparities rooted in socioeconomic status. They emphasized the importance of equitable access to technological infrastructure. This study provides insights into the complex relationship between educational technology and equity within the South African context and underscores the importance of incorporating teachers’ perspectives in the implementation of technology-driven initiatives intended to eliminate educational inequalities.
This study aims to assess the e-learning difficulties faced by students at South African public higher education institutions, given the increasing reliance on online learning as a core mode of teaching and learning. The researchers critically analyzed previous research on technology in higher education to identify gaps in existing knowledge. The study adopted the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) as the theoretical framework to guide the investigation. A quantitative research method was employed, using surveys distributed to experts from various faculties, departments, and students. This approach enabled the collection of data regarding the perceived challenges and barriers to e-learning. The findings revealed that students encountered significant challenges in e-learning, including issues related to digital literacy, limited access to resources, unreliable internet connectivity, and high data costs. These barriers are exacerbated by the disadvantaged and poverty-stricken backgrounds of many students in South African public institutions. Additionally, educators and course designers also face challenges in effectively implementing e-learning solutions. Addressing these challenges is essential for the successful adoption and integration of e-learning in South African higher education institutions. The study suggests that overcoming systemic issues—such as improving digital literacy, enhancing infrastructure, and reducing data costs—could unlock the full potential of e-learning. This could lead to more inclusive, accessible, and effective higher education. This study contributes to the existing body of knowledge by identifying specific barriers to e-learning adoption in South African public higher education institutions. It emphasizes the importance of addressing these challenges to harness the potential of technology-enhanced learning and promote inclusivity in higher education. The findings provide insights into how policy makers, educators, and institutions can better support students and course designers in the transition to e-learning environments.
This qualitative study investigated the forte of load-shedding on the gains of digital technology integration in a selected South African university in Gauteng province. This case study made use of interviews which were conducted using MS Teams among 8 lecturers and 8 students that were selected purposefully. The interpretive paradigm was used to understand the participants’ plight in the reversal of gains that load-shedding continues to bring in their university post-COVID-19 outbreak. The complexity theory was used to underpin the study and the main findings revealed through themes that both the students and lecturers struggle with the learning and teaching activities that need digital tools because of the persistence of load-shedding that affect innovation and skill impartation. It was also revealed that modems that are used as internet sources fail to function during load-shedding because the network is often affected when lights are off. The study recommends that South African universities should invest in renewable energy and resort to an uninterruptible power supply to keep the lights on. All the role-players of ESKOM need to pull in one direction to have a lasting solution that should keep the lights on for digital tools to keep working.
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 |