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 07:23 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.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2023 | All selected publications | 1 | 1 | 1/1 | 1/1 |
| 2024 | All selected publications | 0 | 0 | 0/0 | 0/0 |
| 2025 | All selected publications | 0 | 0 | 0/0 | 0/0 |
| 2026 | All selected publications | 2 | 2 | 2/2 | 2/2 |
| Publication year | Journal / scope | Crossref citations | Publications | Crossref known | OpenAlex known |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2023 | All selected publications | 2 | 1 | 1/1 | 1/1 |
| 2024 | All selected publications | — | 0 | 0/0 | 0/0 |
| 2025 | All selected publications | — | 0 | 0/0 | 0/0 |
| 2026 | All selected publications | 0 | 2 | 2/2 | 2/2 |
| Publication year | Journal / scope | OpenAlex citations | Publications | Crossref known | OpenAlex known |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2023 | All selected publications | 3 | 1 | 1/1 | 1/1 |
| 2024 | All selected publications | — | 0 | 0/0 | 0/0 |
| 2025 | All selected publications | — | 0 | 0/0 | 0/0 |
| 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): 2026-10-21T00:14:36.420816+00:00 — 2026-10-21T07:23:05.905112+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 | 3 | 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 |
|---|---|
| 2023 | 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 | 2 | 3 | 2/2 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 50.0 | 2/2 · 100.0% |
* Percentage among publications with a known citation count.
The aim of this study was to investigate educator’s perceptions of how learners’ rights to safety affect disciplinary procedures in secondary schools in the Umbumbulu Circuit of KwaZulu-Natal. The paper adopted a qualitative approach, where semi-structured interviews were used to collect data from 10 purposively selected educators. The thematic analysis technique was employed to analyse the data. The main findings of the study indicated that educators had their own perceptions of how learners’ rights to safety affect the way they attend to disciplinary issues when a learner has transgressed. The educators’ perceptions of learners’ rights to safety affect disciplinary procedures for many reasons, including poor understanding of relevant education laws and policies. The results also showed that teachers think that the legislation guiding teaching and learning, as well as disciplinary procedures, are marred with contradictions, which make discipline management not only difficult, but also exposes both the learners and the educators to unsafe environments. The study also indicated that the teachers are sensitive to learners’ rights to safety, resulting in restricted attention to learners who are guilty of an offence in the school. In light of these findings, it was recommended that there should be a mandatory continuous in-service workshop for the educators, on how learner discipline can be maintained.
Maintaining discipline is a critical aspect of effective teaching and learning in South African secondary schools. Despite being legally abolished, corporal punishment continues to be used, raising concerns about teacher misconduct and learner well-being. This study explores the perspectives of school management teams (SMTs) on the continued use of corporal punishment. Employing a qualitative approach within an interpretative paradigm, data were collected through interviews with one principal and two deputy principals from two schools. Findings highlight significant challenges associated with corporal punishment, including learner trauma, increased bullying, declining academic performance, and absenteeism. The study recommends that schools adopt alternative disciplinary strategies while actively engaging parents in supporting teachers’ professional development on managing learner behaviour, thereby balancing discipline with learners’ rights.
Rural African classrooms continue to face persistent behavioural challenges, yet many schools still rely on reactive and punitive discipline approaches that are culturally misaligned and inconsistently implemented. This study examines how Indigenous African storytelling, rooted in Afrocentric epistimologies and Ubuntu rational ethics, can be integrated with low-cost digital usage to create a culturally grounded, scalable behavior-guidance model for resource-constrained Limpopo classrooms. Using a convergent mixed-methods design, the study draws on classroom observations, teacher and elder interviews, learner groups, and digital use records collected across several rural primary schools. Findings show that indigenous storytelling effectively communicates behavioural expectations by strengthening learner identity, supporting emotional regulation and reinforcing communal norms. Simple digital tools such as offline stories, WhatsApp messages, and SMS caregiver reminders extend these lessons into the home context and enhance continuity. The combined approach led to improved learner engagement, reduced behavioural disruptions, a more positive classroom climate, and a stronger home environment and school communication. The study demonstrates that embedding indigenous storytelling within an accessible digital reinforcement structure that provides a culturally congruent, humanizing, and feasible behavior support model for rural African schools. It contributes to scholarly conversations on decolonial education, culturally responsive pedagogy, and inclusive behaviour frameworks by illustrating how traditional knoewledge systems and morden technologies can work together to promote learner well-being and classroom harmony.
Rural African classrooms continue to face persistent behavioural challenges, yet many schools still rely on reactive and punitive discipline approaches that are culturally misaligned and inconsistently implemented. This study examines how Indigenous African storytelling, rooted in Afrocentric epistimologies and Ubuntu rational ethics, can be integrated with low-cost digital usage to create a culturally grounded, scalable behavior-guidance model for resource-constrained Limpopo classrooms. Using a convergent mixed-methods design, the study draws on classroom observations, teacher and elder interviews, learner groups, and digital use records collected across several rural primary schools. Findings show that indigenous storytelling effectively communicates behavioural expectations by strengthening learner identity, supporting emotional regulation and reinforcing communal norms. Simple digital tools such as offline stories, WhatsApp messages, and SMS caregiver reminders extend these lessons into the home context and enhance continuity. The combined approach led to improved learner engagement, reduced behavioural disruptions, a more positive classroom climate, and a stronger home environment and school communication. The study demonstrates that embedding indigenous storytelling within an accessible digital reinforcement structure that provides a culturally congruent, humanizing, and feasible behavior support model for rural African schools. It contributes to scholarly conversations on decolonial education, culturally responsive pedagogy, and inclusive behaviour frameworks by illustrating how traditional knoewledge systems and morden technologies can work together to promote learner well-being and classroom harmony.
Maintaining discipline is a critical aspect of effective teaching and learning in South African secondary schools. Despite being legally abolished, corporal punishment continues to be used, raising concerns about teacher misconduct and learner well-being. This study explores the perspectives of school management teams (SMTs) on the continued use of corporal punishment. Employing a qualitative approach within an interpretative paradigm, data were collected through interviews with one principal and two deputy principals from two schools. Findings highlight significant challenges associated with corporal punishment, including learner trauma, increased bullying, declining academic performance, and absenteeism. The study recommends that schools adopt alternative disciplinary strategies while actively engaging parents in supporting teachers’ professional development on managing learner behaviour, thereby balancing discipline with learners’ rights.
The aim of this study was to investigate educator’s perceptions of how learners’ rights to safety affect disciplinary procedures in secondary schools in the Umbumbulu Circuit of KwaZulu-Natal. The paper adopted a qualitative approach, where semi-structured interviews were used to collect data from 10 purposively selected educators. The thematic analysis technique was employed to analyse the data. The main findings of the study indicated that educators had their own perceptions of how learners’ rights to safety affect the way they attend to disciplinary issues when a learner has transgressed. The educators’ perceptions of learners’ rights to safety affect disciplinary procedures for many reasons, including poor understanding of relevant education laws and policies. The results also showed that teachers think that the legislation guiding teaching and learning, as well as disciplinary procedures, are marred with contradictions, which make discipline management not only difficult, but also exposes both the learners and the educators to unsafe environments. The study also indicated that the teachers are sensitive to learners’ rights to safety, resulting in restricted attention to learners who are guilty of an offence in the school. In light of these findings, it was recommended that there should be a mandatory continuous in-service workshop for the educators, on how learner discipline can be maintained.
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 |