CiteNScope — Scholarly Index & Analytics
Discover / Analytics RESEARCH INTELLIGENCE
CiteNScope / Analytics

Explore the evidence.
Understand the reach.

Research across participating journals · All insights follow your collection filters.

Compare journals ↗
OpenAlex coverage 100.0% · 7/7 recordsLast OpenAlex observation 21 Oct 2026, 07:23 UTC
PUBLICATIONS7In the selected collection
CROSSREF CITATIONS57/7 with known counts
OPENALEX CITATIONS47/7 with known counts
OPENALEX MEAN0.57Per article with a known count
Explore articles 7 →
Filter collection Publication years, search & more
Reset
topic: Ethics and Social Impacts of AI Remove ×
Your research collection

Output and reach

Publication activity alongside incoming citations.

Publication activity

Articles grouped by publication year

Publications

Hover over a year or focus the chart and use arrow keys to inspect values.

2026 is year to date. 0 undated publications excluded.

View data & coverage

Citations received

OpenAlex · year of the citing work

OpenAlex

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.

View data & coverage

Research landscape

Leading affiliations and themes in this collection.

Full distributions & methodology ↓

Institutions

University of Zululand1Mangosuthu University of Technology1University of South Africa16/7 records with data

Countries

South Africa5Saudi Arabia16/7 records with data

Primary topics

Ethics and Social Impacts of AI77/7 records with data
Two perspectives on citations

Follow the research impact

Independent sources. Clear time scales.

Lifetime citations by publication year

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.

View data & coverage

Citations received each year

OpenAlex · incoming citation links grouped by citing-work year

OpenAlex

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.

View data & coverage
Annual history: 7/7 articles. Latest history observation: 2026-10-21T07:23:09.624987+00:00. Source totals are never added together.
Research side by side

Compare journals

Select journals to compare the same collection filters. Source totals stay separate. These measures describe research activity, not journal quality.

Leave all unchecked to include every matching journal. Selection affects only comparison charts.
Display range
International Journal of Business Ecosystem & StrategyInternational Journal of Research in Business and Social Science

Publications

Articles by publication year

View data & coverage

Crossref citations

Latest lifetime totals · grouped by publication year

View data & coverage

OpenAlex citations

Latest lifetime totals · grouped by publication year

View data & coverage

OpenAlex · Citations received

By year of the citing work · 2017–2026

View data & coverage

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.

Full analytics report All distributions, publications, comparisons & data provenance
7 MATCHING PUBLICATIONSExplore results →Export CSV ↓
INDEXED PUBLICATIONS7
CROSSREF CITATIONS5
CROSSREF · CITED PUBLICATIONS57.1%
CROSSREF · MEAN CITATIONS0.71

Crossref citation coverage: 7 / 7 publications (100.0%). Latest observation: 21 Oct 2026, 07:22 UTC. Means and percentages use records with known counts.

OpenAlex / Separate citation source

A broader view of this research

DOI-matched OpenAlex observations for the same selected publications. These counts are separate from Crossref and are never added together.

OPENALEX CITATIONS4
DOI MATCH COVERAGE100.0%7 / 7 publications
MEAN · KNOWN COUNTS ONLY0.577 known · 0 unknown
MEDIAN · KNOWN COUNTS ONLY0

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 citation distributionNo citations41–536–20021+0Unknown0

Institutions, countries & topics

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.

Institutions

6 / 7 with data · 1 missing or unmatched. Percentages use all 7 selected publications.

Countries

6 / 7 with data · 1 missing or unmatched. Percentages use all 7 selected publications.

Primary topics

7 / 7 with data · 0 missing or unmatched. Percentages use all 7 selected publications.

Citation year / OpenAlex

Citations received over time

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): 2026-10-21T00:14:33.511638+00:00 — 2026-10-21T07:23:09.624987+00:00. Older observations may be retained after failed or incomplete refreshes.

OpenAlex · Citations received by year

42.00 2017 · All selected publications · OpenAlex · Citations received by year: 0 · Annual history coverage 7/72018 · All selected publications · OpenAlex · Citations received by year: 0 · Annual history coverage 7/72019 · All selected publications · OpenAlex · Citations received by year: 0 · Annual history coverage 7/72020 · All selected publications · OpenAlex · Citations received by year: 0 · Annual history coverage 7/72021 · All selected publications · OpenAlex · Citations received by year: 0 · Annual history coverage 7/72022 · All selected publications · OpenAlex · Citations received by year: 0 · Annual history coverage 7/72023 · All selected publications · OpenAlex · Citations received by year: 0 · Annual history coverage 7/72024 · All selected publications · OpenAlex · Citations received by year: 0 · Annual history coverage 7/72025 · All selected publications · OpenAlex · Citations received by year: 0 · Annual history coverage 7/72026 · All selected publications · OpenAlex · Citations received by year: 4 · Annual history coverage 7/7 2017201820192020202120222023202420252026
View openalex · citations received by year data & coverage
Citation yearJournal / scopeOpenAlex · Citations received by yearPublicationsAnnual history known
2017All selected publications077/7
2018All selected publications077/7
2019All selected publications077/7
2020All selected publications077/7
2021All selected publications077/7
2022All selected publications077/7
2023All selected publications077/7
2024All selected publications077/7
2025All selected publications077/7
2026All selected publications477/7

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 ↗

Crossref citation distribution

Latest Crossref totals for the selected publications; not citations received in the selected years.

Mean0.71
Median1
No citations31–546–20021+0Unknown0

Unknown counts are excluded from the mean, median and cited-publication rate.

Journal comparison

Same filters, source and counting rules across journals. Descriptive statistics, not a quality ranking.

Journal / publisherPublicationsCrossref citationsOpenAlex citationsOpenAlex coverageCrossref meanCrossref medianCrossref cited %*Crossref coverage
International Journal of Business Ecosystem & Strategy
Bussecon International Academy
4324/40.750.550.04/4 · 100.0%
International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science
SSBFNET
3223/30.67166.73/3 · 100.0%

* Percentage among publications with a known citation count.

Explore publications

View all 7 →

Most cited · Crossref

JOURNAL ARTICLE

Ethical considerations of implementing Artificial Intelligence in Human Resource Management: a review

Samuel Bangura · Princess Thulile Duma · Ntombifuthi Alexia Mthembu

International Journal of Business Ecosystem & Strategy · 2025

Read abstract

The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into human resource management (HRM) processes has significantly enhanced organisational operations by optimising efficiency in talent acquisition, performance assessment, and employee engagement initiatives. Nonetheless, this integration introduces ethical challenges, including algorithmic bias, data privacy concerns, and the reduction of human decision-making autonomy. The purpose of the review is to systematically examine the ethical considerations associated with AI deployment in HRM, explicitly addressing issues related to bias, transparency, privacy breaches, and job displacement. Additionally, it evaluates strategies for deploying AI responsibly to uphold principles of fairness, accountability, and stakeholder trust. Considering the purpose of the review, a comprehensive systematic review of peer-reviewed literature was conducted, sourcing data from Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. The review targeted publications relevant to the aims of the study, utilising search keywords such as "ethical consideration," "algorithmic bias," and "data privacy." Data synthesis was conducted via narrative methods complemented by thematic analysis to identify prevailing patterns, research gaps, and emergent themes. Findings revealed that AI enhances HRM functions through automation, predictive analytics, and the delivery of individualised employee experiences, contributing to cost reductions and improved decision-making efficacy. However, potential negative implications include reinforcement of existing biases, violations of privacy, lack of transparency in decision-making processes, and threats to employment stability. Empirical evidence indicates disproportionate impacts on marginalised populations and underscores the necessity for ethical frameworks, including the development and implementation of explainable AI (XAI) and hybrid human-AI systems. Finally, it is affirmed that although AI offers transformative operational benefits within HRM, the associated ethical risks necessitate the implementation of comprehensive governance structures, bias mitigation protocols, and active stakeholder participation. Approaches such as hybrid human-AI systems, targeted workforce training, and adherence to regulatory standards are essential to ensuring sustainable and ethical AI integration. Future research should prioritise investigating employee perceptions and conducting cross-cultural analyses to enhance ethical AI governance in HRM contexts.

DOI 10.36096/ijbes.v7i5.9862 Crossref citations2 OpenAlex citations
JOURNAL ARTICLE

Integration of generative artificial intelligence into higher education research as a supporting tool: A balance between innovation and ethics in research

Shadreck Muchaku · Hlekani Kabiti · Bernard Nthambeleni

International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science · 2025

Read abstract

Although the growing use of generative artificial intelligence (GAI) in higher education research offers exciting potential for enhancing innovation and efficiency, it is also troubled by significant ethical challenges. This review systematically explores critical concerns that border on risks that are associated with data privacy, algorithmic bias, transparency deficiencies, accountability gaps, and threats to academic integrity. This was done by providing a literature-based assessment of why the use GAI in higher education continues to be problematic. This assessment yielded informative insights that were deciphered from 31 papers which were systematically selected from a sampling universe of 119 publications. Findings highlight the necessity of striking a balance between embracing AI-driven advancements and upholding ethical standards in research, in a manner that does not compromise human capacities to mitigate the unexpected eventualities and their consequences. A set of actionable guidelines that are designed to enhance the responsible integration of GAI in higher education without side-lining the importance of observing critical ethical issues that must be considered and adhered to in academic research is given. These guidelines are useful because they form the foundation of a robust framework which gui, Generative, Higher Education, Researchdes the way GAI is used in higher education research without forgetting that this technology is not an all-round paragon.

DOI 10.20525/ijrbs.v14i6.40801 Crossref citations1 OpenAlex citations
JOURNAL ARTICLE

The disruptive nature of AI-Powered technologies: balancing the dichotomy of dependence and autonomy for IT Professionals

Mark Frater · Rodney Mushininga

International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science · 2025

Read abstract

This paper critically examined the impact of over-dependence on Artificial Intelligence (AI) by Information Technology (IT) Professionals, exploring the impact on cognitive functions such as critical thinking, decision-making, and problem-solving, and how these affect the autonomy of IT Professionals. Using quantitative research methodology, the study surveyed 180 IT Professionals to gauge their usage of and dependence on AI-powered tools, as well as their perceptions about AI technologies and the effects these might have on their cognitive abilities. The findings showed a very significant integration of AI by the respondents in both their personal and professional capacities, as well as a substantial dependence on AI-powered tools, particularly for decision-making purposes. Furthermore, there appeared to be a possible underestimation of the effects that AI usage has on cognitive abilities, as expressed through the paradoxical survey results. Moreover, several ethical issues were identified such as bias, privacy and the lagging behind of laws and regulations, further serving to complicate the effects of over-dependence on AI. Based on its findings this paper makes recommendations for the development of clear guidelines for the use of AI, continuous learning and development programs, focusing on AI advancements and risks, as well as the implementation of frequent impact and security assessments. These recommendations aim to assist organisations and IT Professionals to benefit from the advantages of AI while maintaining critical skills, human oversight and intuition.

DOI 10.20525/ijrbs.v14i2.36781 Crossref citations1 OpenAlex citations
JOURNAL ARTICLE

Artificial intelligence, decoloniality and epistemic justice in the South African public sector: Implications for human resource management in Industry 5.0

Monument Thulani Bongani Makhanya

International Journal of Business Ecosystem & Strategy · 2025

Read abstract

In the context of Industry 5.0, the convergence of Artificial Intelligence (AI), decoloniality, and epistemic justice presents both opportunities and challenges for Human Resource Management (HRM) in the South African public sector. This paper emanates because of the possibility that AI-driven HRM practices could reinforce colonial legacies, repeat systemic bias, and prolong epistemic exclusion if not led by justice-oriented perspectives. This paper aims to explore how concepts of ethical, decolonial, and epistemic justice might inform the use of AI in HRM to promote inclusivity and fairness. This paper employs bibliometric analysis to map and evaluate scholarly discourse on AI, decoloniality, and HRM, aiming to uncover research trends, gaps, and theoretical intersections. Findings indicate that although AI can be efficient and predictive, its application in HRM frequently ignores ethical requirements and local knowledge systems. To protect equity, the study recommends integrating decolonial ideas, participatory methods, and epistemic justice frameworks into HRM technology. This paper concludes that the South African public sector may reconcile technological innovation with transformation and social justice imperatives by ethically aligning AI in Industry 5.0.

DOI 10.36096/ijbes.v7i5.10301 Crossref citations0 OpenAlex citations
JOURNAL ARTICLE

Artificial Intelligence, Accounting Ethics, and Trust in Financial Reporting: Developing an Ethical AI Governance Framework

Ahmed Alribi

International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science · 2026

Read abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) is fundamentally transforming accounting practice by displacing traditional data-processing tasks, augmenting auditing functions, and reshaping the professional competency requirements of financial reporting. While these technological developments generate substantial efficiency gains, they simultaneously introduce unprecedented ethical challenges, including algorithmic opacity, accountability diffusion, bias propagation in automated judgment, and the erosion of professional scepticism — that threaten the integrity of financial reporting and the public trust upon which the accounting profession's social licence to operate ultimately depends. This paper develops a rigorous, theoretically grounded analysis of the intersection between artificial intelligence and accounting ethics, drawing on institutional theory, agency theory, virtue ethics, and the stakeholder trust framework to diagnose how AI adoption reconfigures the ethical architecture of financial reporting and to prescribe the governance, professional, and regulatory responses required to safeguard ethical standards and trust in this transformed environment. The paper makes three original contributions: first, it develops a multi-dimensional taxonomy of AI-related ethical risks in accounting, distinguishing technical, professional, and systemic risk categories; second, it proposes the Ethical AI Accounting Governance Framework (EAAGF), an original implementation model that integrates algorithmic governance, professional ethics renewal, regulatory adaptation, and stakeholder assurance mechanisms; and third, it situates these contributions within a comparative empirical analysis of AI adoption experiences across major accounting contexts, integrating evidence from surveys, regulatory reports, and case illustrations. The paper argues that the central challenge is not whether AI will transform accounting — this is already occurring — but whether the profession, regulators, and organisations can collectively construct the ethical governance infrastructure required to ensure that transformation advances rather than undermines the accountability, transparency, and trust that constitute the profession's foundational social purpose.

DOI 10.20525/ijrbs.v15i5.53030 Crossref citations0 OpenAlex citations

Selected results

JOURNAL ARTICLE

Ubuntu, African Ethics, and Human-Centred Artificial Intelligence in Project Management: A Systematic Literature Review

Zainab Aziz · Tshilidzi Eric Nenzhelele

International Journal of Business Ecosystem & Strategy · 2026

Read abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) is progressively revolutionising project management by enhancing forecasting, planning, decision-making, risk evaluation, and organisational efficacy. Nevertheless, escalating apprehensions about trust, accountability, equity, transparency, and human supervision have underscored the necessity for governance strategies that transcend mere technical efficacy. This research performs a concept-focused systematic literature review to investigate the convergence of Ubuntu, African ethics, Human-Centred Artificial Intelligence (HCAI), and project governance. This research consolidates disparate knowledge domains related to responsible AI, HCAI, ethical leadership, stakeholder governance, organisational preparedness, and Ubuntu-informed leadership, stakeholder inclusivity, and a comprehensive Ubuntu-informed human-AI governance framework, utilising peer-reviewed literature from 2022 to 2026. This research posits that Ubuntu offers a unique governance viewpoint rooted in collective responsibility, relational leadership, and human dignity. The results indicate that Ubuntu-informed AI governance can assist African governments and policymakers in establishing ethical and responsible frameworks. This research establishes a basis for subsequent investigations on Ubuntu, artificial intelligence governance, and project management. The results underscore the significance of ethical leadership, stakeholder engagement, human supervision, and responsibility for project management professionals in responsible AI-driven project settings.

DOI 10.36096/ijbes.v8i4.13660 Crossref citations0 OpenAlex citations
JOURNAL ARTICLE

Artificial Intelligence, Accounting Ethics, and Trust in Financial Reporting: Developing an Ethical AI Governance Framework

Ahmed Alribi

International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science · 2026

Read abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) is fundamentally transforming accounting practice by displacing traditional data-processing tasks, augmenting auditing functions, and reshaping the professional competency requirements of financial reporting. While these technological developments generate substantial efficiency gains, they simultaneously introduce unprecedented ethical challenges, including algorithmic opacity, accountability diffusion, bias propagation in automated judgment, and the erosion of professional scepticism — that threaten the integrity of financial reporting and the public trust upon which the accounting profession's social licence to operate ultimately depends. This paper develops a rigorous, theoretically grounded analysis of the intersection between artificial intelligence and accounting ethics, drawing on institutional theory, agency theory, virtue ethics, and the stakeholder trust framework to diagnose how AI adoption reconfigures the ethical architecture of financial reporting and to prescribe the governance, professional, and regulatory responses required to safeguard ethical standards and trust in this transformed environment. The paper makes three original contributions: first, it develops a multi-dimensional taxonomy of AI-related ethical risks in accounting, distinguishing technical, professional, and systemic risk categories; second, it proposes the Ethical AI Accounting Governance Framework (EAAGF), an original implementation model that integrates algorithmic governance, professional ethics renewal, regulatory adaptation, and stakeholder assurance mechanisms; and third, it situates these contributions within a comparative empirical analysis of AI adoption experiences across major accounting contexts, integrating evidence from surveys, regulatory reports, and case illustrations. The paper argues that the central challenge is not whether AI will transform accounting — this is already occurring — but whether the profession, regulators, and organisations can collectively construct the ethical governance infrastructure required to ensure that transformation advances rather than undermines the accountability, transparency, and trust that constitute the profession's foundational social purpose.

DOI 10.20525/ijrbs.v15i5.53030 Crossref citations0 OpenAlex citations
JOURNAL ARTICLE

Rethinking research ethics in the age of artificial intelligence: Towards a contextual, just, and accountable framework

Vuyani Goodman Langa · Sanjay Balkaran

International Journal of Business Ecosystem & Strategy · 2026

Read abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) is revolutionizing the world of research, posing unforeseen opportunities and imminent ethical challenges. This article redefines the ethic of research in AI by advocating for a shift toward a contextual, fair, and accountable approach. It examines critically how the existing standards of ethics are inadequate in addressing the complexity, scale, and lack of transparency of AI systems that are increasingly being used in research settings. By qualitative analysis of recent applications of AI in domains, the paper delineates core ethical issues, including undermining data privacy, algorithmic bias, incomprehensible decision-making, and diminishing accountability. These issues are enhanced in critical domains such as health care, social sciences, and public governance, where ethical errors have the potential to reinforce system injustice or victimize vulnerable populations. The paper argues that ethical responsibility in AI research has to be non-uniform. Rather, it calls for contextual ethics attuned to specific disciplines and cultural milieux in conjunction with justice-based methods that actively work against bias and inequality. Accountability must be designed into research design, not appended, through enforceable policy, continuous ethics education, and multidisciplinary governance. Suggestions include integrating AI-specific ethical norms into institutional policy, fostering open dialogue across disciplines, and developing an ethics culture of foresight. By encouraging a contextual, ethical approach, the research community can ensure that AI does not just accelerate discovery but does so in an equitable, transparent, and socially responsible fashion.

DOI 10.36096/ijbes.v7i6.10560 Crossref citations0 OpenAlex citations
JOURNAL ARTICLE

Ethical considerations of implementing Artificial Intelligence in Human Resource Management: a review

Samuel Bangura · Princess Thulile Duma · Ntombifuthi Alexia Mthembu

International Journal of Business Ecosystem & Strategy · 2025

Read abstract

The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into human resource management (HRM) processes has significantly enhanced organisational operations by optimising efficiency in talent acquisition, performance assessment, and employee engagement initiatives. Nonetheless, this integration introduces ethical challenges, including algorithmic bias, data privacy concerns, and the reduction of human decision-making autonomy. The purpose of the review is to systematically examine the ethical considerations associated with AI deployment in HRM, explicitly addressing issues related to bias, transparency, privacy breaches, and job displacement. Additionally, it evaluates strategies for deploying AI responsibly to uphold principles of fairness, accountability, and stakeholder trust. Considering the purpose of the review, a comprehensive systematic review of peer-reviewed literature was conducted, sourcing data from Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. The review targeted publications relevant to the aims of the study, utilising search keywords such as "ethical consideration," "algorithmic bias," and "data privacy." Data synthesis was conducted via narrative methods complemented by thematic analysis to identify prevailing patterns, research gaps, and emergent themes. Findings revealed that AI enhances HRM functions through automation, predictive analytics, and the delivery of individualised employee experiences, contributing to cost reductions and improved decision-making efficacy. However, potential negative implications include reinforcement of existing biases, violations of privacy, lack of transparency in decision-making processes, and threats to employment stability. Empirical evidence indicates disproportionate impacts on marginalised populations and underscores the necessity for ethical frameworks, including the development and implementation of explainable AI (XAI) and hybrid human-AI systems. Finally, it is affirmed that although AI offers transformative operational benefits within HRM, the associated ethical risks necessitate the implementation of comprehensive governance structures, bias mitigation protocols, and active stakeholder participation. Approaches such as hybrid human-AI systems, targeted workforce training, and adherence to regulatory standards are essential to ensuring sustainable and ethical AI integration. Future research should prioritise investigating employee perceptions and conducting cross-cultural analyses to enhance ethical AI governance in HRM contexts.

DOI 10.36096/ijbes.v7i5.9862 Crossref citations2 OpenAlex citations
JOURNAL ARTICLE

Artificial intelligence, decoloniality and epistemic justice in the South African public sector: Implications for human resource management in Industry 5.0

Monument Thulani Bongani Makhanya

International Journal of Business Ecosystem & Strategy · 2025

Read abstract

In the context of Industry 5.0, the convergence of Artificial Intelligence (AI), decoloniality, and epistemic justice presents both opportunities and challenges for Human Resource Management (HRM) in the South African public sector. This paper emanates because of the possibility that AI-driven HRM practices could reinforce colonial legacies, repeat systemic bias, and prolong epistemic exclusion if not led by justice-oriented perspectives. This paper aims to explore how concepts of ethical, decolonial, and epistemic justice might inform the use of AI in HRM to promote inclusivity and fairness. This paper employs bibliometric analysis to map and evaluate scholarly discourse on AI, decoloniality, and HRM, aiming to uncover research trends, gaps, and theoretical intersections. Findings indicate that although AI can be efficient and predictive, its application in HRM frequently ignores ethical requirements and local knowledge systems. To protect equity, the study recommends integrating decolonial ideas, participatory methods, and epistemic justice frameworks into HRM technology. This paper concludes that the South African public sector may reconcile technological innovation with transformation and social justice imperatives by ethically aligning AI in Industry 5.0.

DOI 10.36096/ijbes.v7i5.10301 Crossref citations0 OpenAlex citations

Data coverage & freshness

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

SourceMost recent successful journal syncLatest attempt
crossref21 Oct 2026 07:22 UTC · ijrbscomplete · ijrbs · 21 Oct 2026 07:22 UTC
ojs-rest21 Oct 2026 07:22 UTC · ijrbscomplete · ijrbs · 21 Oct 2026 06:46 UTC
oai-pmh20 Oct 2026 19:55 UTC · ijrbscomplete · ijrbs · 20 Oct 2026 19:50 UTC
openalex-enrichment21 Oct 2026 07:23 UTC · ijrbscomplete · ijrbs · 21 Oct 2026 07:22 UTC
Full import history & methodology →