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 07:22 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2022 | All selected publications | 1 | 1 | 1/1 | 1/1 |
| 2023 | All selected publications | 0 | 0 | 0/0 | 0/0 |
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2022 | All selected publications | 1 | 1 | 1/1 | 1/1 |
| 2023 | All selected publications | — | 0 | 0/0 | 0/0 |
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2022 | All selected publications | 1 | 1 | 1/1 | 1/1 |
| 2023 | All selected publications | — | 0 | 0/0 | 0/0 |
| 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): 2026-10-21T07:22:45.224405+00:00 — 2026-10-21T07:23:06.713636+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 | 1 | 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 |
|---|---|
| 2022 | 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 Research in Business and Social Science SSBFNET | 3 | 1 | 1 | 3/3 | 0.33 | 0 | 33.3 | 3/3 · 100.0% |
* Percentage among publications with a known citation count.
This paper aims to investigate whether home language teaching has an impact on enhanced additional language learning pedagogies. Participants, as data sources, were four university teachers purposely identified because of the task assigned to them, assessing student teachers in diverse schools during TP. Data for this inquiry was collected through semi-structured interviews. It was divulged as the main findings that (i) time constraints caused by consistent code-switching to acquaint with the unfamiliar medium, and (ii) learner dropout rate were challenges. This paper concludes that policies need to be redefined for enhanced language proficiency so that the ultimate end is learners who can communicate globally in a wide range of linguistic constituencies.
This study investigates the effectiveness of integrating simplified English and multiple learning tools in English-Medium Instruction (EMI) general education courses in non-English speaking contexts. As EMI proliferates globally, institutions face persistent challenges related to students' mixed English proficiency and the complexity of academic content. To address these challenges, this research examines a pedagogical approach that combines simplified English with diverse learning tools, including mind maps, group discussions, worksheets, and project work. An 11-item, 5-point Likert scale questionnaire was administered to 327 students enrolled in two EMI general education courses—"Creativity and Innovation” (n=168) and “Service Innovation” (n=159)—at a Taiwanese university of science and technology over five years (2020-2025). Mann-Whitney U tests were conducted to compare student perceptions across the two courses, and cross-table statistics were used to identify patterns in student responses. The findings reveal consistently high levels of student satisfaction across both courses, with no statistically significant differences detected between them (all p >0.05). Students reported strong agreement that the instructional approach enabled them to understand professional knowledge despite the EMI setting (78.9% agreement), stimulated the effectiveness of their English learning (76.8% agreement), and fostered willingness to take additional EMI courses (76.8% agreement). Students also reported high levels of personal effort in learning activities (81.6% agreement). However, the development of good study habits for class preview and review emerged as a relatively weaker area (58.2% agreement), suggesting a need for additional pedagogical scaffolding to support self-directed learning. The study concludes that combining simplified English with multiple learning tools represents an effective and transferable pedagogical strategy for addressing linguistic diversity in EMI contexts. While the approach facilitates content comprehension and student engagement, explicit attention to fostering autonomous learning skills remains essential for comprehensive EMI pedagogy.
The progression of English First Additional Language (EFL) learners from foundational and intermediate phases to higher education poses considerable obstacles for both primary educators and tertiary institutions. This study presents an innovative multi-stakeholder viewpoint by incorporating the insights of instructors, higher education experts, and students, thereby delivering a thorough grasp of the issues encountered throughout educational stages. Notwithstanding initial language teaching, numerous EFL learners encounter difficulties with the academic requirements of higher education, frequently attributable to insufficient reading, critical thinking, and academic discourse competencies. This disparity adversely affects their successful assimilation and academic achievement in higher education. This study seeks to identify the primary pedagogical and systemic problems faced by educators in educating EFL learners, as well as those encountered by higher education institutions in facilitating their uninterrupted academic advancement. A qualitative study methodology will be utilised to collect data via semi-structured interviews with foundation and intermediate phase educators, language support professionals in higher education, and EFL students. Thematic analysis will be employed to reveal persistent patterns and insights. Initial findings indicate substantial discrepancies in curricular alignment, inadequate teacher preparation emphasising the scaffolding of advanced academic language abilities, and restricted comprehensive language support services in higher education. Students encounter challenges with academic reading, writing, and comprehending discipline-specific vocabulary. Addressing the EFL progression gap necessitates a collaborative and comprehensive strategy, incorporating explicit academic language training throughout all educational stages and creating strong support structures in higher education. This study employs a multi-stakeholder perspective to elucidate systemic obstacles to EFL academic achievement and offers pragmatic solutions for curriculum enhancement, teacher professionalisation, and improved tertiary language support.
This study investigates the effectiveness of integrating simplified English and multiple learning tools in English-Medium Instruction (EMI) general education courses in non-English speaking contexts. As EMI proliferates globally, institutions face persistent challenges related to students' mixed English proficiency and the complexity of academic content. To address these challenges, this research examines a pedagogical approach that combines simplified English with diverse learning tools, including mind maps, group discussions, worksheets, and project work. An 11-item, 5-point Likert scale questionnaire was administered to 327 students enrolled in two EMI general education courses—"Creativity and Innovation” (n=168) and “Service Innovation” (n=159)—at a Taiwanese university of science and technology over five years (2020-2025). Mann-Whitney U tests were conducted to compare student perceptions across the two courses, and cross-table statistics were used to identify patterns in student responses. The findings reveal consistently high levels of student satisfaction across both courses, with no statistically significant differences detected between them (all p >0.05). Students reported strong agreement that the instructional approach enabled them to understand professional knowledge despite the EMI setting (78.9% agreement), stimulated the effectiveness of their English learning (76.8% agreement), and fostered willingness to take additional EMI courses (76.8% agreement). Students also reported high levels of personal effort in learning activities (81.6% agreement). However, the development of good study habits for class preview and review emerged as a relatively weaker area (58.2% agreement), suggesting a need for additional pedagogical scaffolding to support self-directed learning. The study concludes that combining simplified English with multiple learning tools represents an effective and transferable pedagogical strategy for addressing linguistic diversity in EMI contexts. While the approach facilitates content comprehension and student engagement, explicit attention to fostering autonomous learning skills remains essential for comprehensive EMI pedagogy.
The progression of English First Additional Language (EFL) learners from foundational and intermediate phases to higher education poses considerable obstacles for both primary educators and tertiary institutions. This study presents an innovative multi-stakeholder viewpoint by incorporating the insights of instructors, higher education experts, and students, thereby delivering a thorough grasp of the issues encountered throughout educational stages. Notwithstanding initial language teaching, numerous EFL learners encounter difficulties with the academic requirements of higher education, frequently attributable to insufficient reading, critical thinking, and academic discourse competencies. This disparity adversely affects their successful assimilation and academic achievement in higher education. This study seeks to identify the primary pedagogical and systemic problems faced by educators in educating EFL learners, as well as those encountered by higher education institutions in facilitating their uninterrupted academic advancement. A qualitative study methodology will be utilised to collect data via semi-structured interviews with foundation and intermediate phase educators, language support professionals in higher education, and EFL students. Thematic analysis will be employed to reveal persistent patterns and insights. Initial findings indicate substantial discrepancies in curricular alignment, inadequate teacher preparation emphasising the scaffolding of advanced academic language abilities, and restricted comprehensive language support services in higher education. Students encounter challenges with academic reading, writing, and comprehending discipline-specific vocabulary. Addressing the EFL progression gap necessitates a collaborative and comprehensive strategy, incorporating explicit academic language training throughout all educational stages and creating strong support structures in higher education. This study employs a multi-stakeholder perspective to elucidate systemic obstacles to EFL academic achievement and offers pragmatic solutions for curriculum enhancement, teacher professionalisation, and improved tertiary language support.
This paper aims to investigate whether home language teaching has an impact on enhanced additional language learning pedagogies. Participants, as data sources, were four university teachers purposely identified because of the task assigned to them, assessing student teachers in diverse schools during TP. Data for this inquiry was collected through semi-structured interviews. It was divulged as the main findings that (i) time constraints caused by consistent code-switching to acquaint with the unfamiliar medium, and (ii) learner dropout rate were challenges. This paper concludes that policies need to be redefined for enhanced language proficiency so that the ultimate end is learners who can communicate globally in a wide range of linguistic constituencies.
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 |