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, 00:14 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 00:14 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2024 | All selected publications | 2 | 2 | 2/2 | 2/2 |
| 2025 | All selected publications | 1 | 1 | 1/1 | 1/1 |
| Publication year | Journal / scope | Crossref citations | Publications | Crossref known | OpenAlex known |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2024 | All selected publications | 3 | 2 | 2/2 | 2/2 |
| 2025 | All selected publications | 0 | 1 | 1/1 | 1/1 |
| Publication year | Journal / scope | OpenAlex citations | Publications | Crossref known | OpenAlex known |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2024 | All selected publications | 4 | 2 | 2/2 | 2/2 |
| 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): 2026-10-21T00:14:30.173129+00:00 — 2026-10-21T00:14:31.466632+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 | 1 | 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 |
|---|---|
| 2024 | 2 |
| 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 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 3/3 | 1.0 | 1 | 66.7 | 3/3 · 100.0% |
* Percentage among publications with a known citation count.
This study focused on improving the diagnosis of African swine fever (ASF) by improving accuracy, reliability and precision using various machine learning algorithms. Data from the European Union Reference Laboratory for ASF and the EU Animal Disease Information System (ADIS) containing clinical information on wild and domestic pigs were processed and converted into numerical and categorical formats for analysis. Various machine learning models were tested as part of the study, including linear regression, Bayesian regression, support vector machines (SVM), decision trees, random forest classifiers, artificial neural networks (ANNs) and logistic regression. The models were evaluated using metrics such as accuracy, precision, recall, F1-score and root mean square error (RMSE). The results showed that the SVM achieved the lowest performance with 44.4% accuracy, followed by the logistic regression model with 61.5%. The neural network model achieved 69% accuracy, closely followed by the decision tree model with 70%. The linear regression model performed slightly better with 74% accuracy. Bayesian regression achieved a higher accuracy of 80%, while the Random Forest model outperformed all others, achieving the highest accuracy of 88.9%. These results make an important contribution to economic efficiency and innovative applications in veterinary medicine and improve disease management through advanced machine learning techniques.
This review emphasizes the urgent need for effective diagnostic strategies for African swine fever (ASF), a serious disease affecting pig populations worldwide. The aim of the review is to analyze the existing research on ASF diagnostics through a comprehensive literature review, focusing on different diagnostic approaches, including clinical assessments, PCR tests, ELISA, rapid tests and epidemiological models. It examines their sensitivity, specificity and overall performance, addressing challenges such as the varying sensitivity of tests and cross-reactivity. The review highlights both the strengths and limitations of current methods and suggests areas for improvement and standardization. Recommendations are made for future research and the development of innovative diagnostic tools to improve ASF surveillance and control. This study makes a practical contribution by providing a detailed assessment of ASF diagnostic methods from which veterinary scientists and practitioners can benefit. Theoretical contributions include the identification of gaps in ASF diagnostics and the refinement of discussions on diagnostic accuracy and reliability. These findings are consistent with the journal’s focus on infectious diseases and veterinary research and support progress in veterinary medicine and animal welfare.
This paper presents the practical application of a novel approach, the so-called "Lububu method", to develop a causal machine learning model (CML) for the diagnosis of African swine fever (ASF). The Lububu method was developed to build causal machine learning models by focusing on the contextual understanding of a particular phenomenon and using technological tools to improve accuracy. Its main goal is to identify cause-and-effect relationships that can lead to better outcomes in various fields, including manufacturing, energy production, agriculture, transportation, data management, medicine and computer science. In this study, the Lububu method serves as an experimental framework for the construction of a CML model tailored to ASF diagnosis. This involves gathering comprehensive knowledge about ASF, covering aspects such as the causes, symptoms, transmission patterns and diagnostic procedures. This detailed contextual understanding supports the development of a model that can accurately identify ASF-related factors, ultimately increasing diagnostic effectiveness. By combining AI innovation and epidemiological expertise, this approach redefines ASF diagnostics and paves the way for data-driven, ethical and globally applicable solutions for veterinary medicine.
This paper presents the practical application of a novel approach, the so-called "Lububu method", to develop a causal machine learning model (CML) for the diagnosis of African swine fever (ASF). The Lububu method was developed to build causal machine learning models by focusing on the contextual understanding of a particular phenomenon and using technological tools to improve accuracy. Its main goal is to identify cause-and-effect relationships that can lead to better outcomes in various fields, including manufacturing, energy production, agriculture, transportation, data management, medicine and computer science. In this study, the Lububu method serves as an experimental framework for the construction of a CML model tailored to ASF diagnosis. This involves gathering comprehensive knowledge about ASF, covering aspects such as the causes, symptoms, transmission patterns and diagnostic procedures. This detailed contextual understanding supports the development of a model that can accurately identify ASF-related factors, ultimately increasing diagnostic effectiveness. By combining AI innovation and epidemiological expertise, this approach redefines ASF diagnostics and paves the way for data-driven, ethical and globally applicable solutions for veterinary medicine.
This review emphasizes the urgent need for effective diagnostic strategies for African swine fever (ASF), a serious disease affecting pig populations worldwide. The aim of the review is to analyze the existing research on ASF diagnostics through a comprehensive literature review, focusing on different diagnostic approaches, including clinical assessments, PCR tests, ELISA, rapid tests and epidemiological models. It examines their sensitivity, specificity and overall performance, addressing challenges such as the varying sensitivity of tests and cross-reactivity. The review highlights both the strengths and limitations of current methods and suggests areas for improvement and standardization. Recommendations are made for future research and the development of innovative diagnostic tools to improve ASF surveillance and control. This study makes a practical contribution by providing a detailed assessment of ASF diagnostic methods from which veterinary scientists and practitioners can benefit. Theoretical contributions include the identification of gaps in ASF diagnostics and the refinement of discussions on diagnostic accuracy and reliability. These findings are consistent with the journal’s focus on infectious diseases and veterinary research and support progress in veterinary medicine and animal welfare.
This study focused on improving the diagnosis of African swine fever (ASF) by improving accuracy, reliability and precision using various machine learning algorithms. Data from the European Union Reference Laboratory for ASF and the EU Animal Disease Information System (ADIS) containing clinical information on wild and domestic pigs were processed and converted into numerical and categorical formats for analysis. Various machine learning models were tested as part of the study, including linear regression, Bayesian regression, support vector machines (SVM), decision trees, random forest classifiers, artificial neural networks (ANNs) and logistic regression. The models were evaluated using metrics such as accuracy, precision, recall, F1-score and root mean square error (RMSE). The results showed that the SVM achieved the lowest performance with 44.4% accuracy, followed by the logistic regression model with 61.5%. The neural network model achieved 69% accuracy, closely followed by the decision tree model with 70%. The linear regression model performed slightly better with 74% accuracy. Bayesian regression achieved a higher accuracy of 80%, while the Random Forest model outperformed all others, achieving the highest accuracy of 88.9%. These results make an important contribution to economic efficiency and innovative applications in veterinary medicine and improve disease management through advanced machine learning techniques.
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 00:14 UTC · ijbes | complete · ijbes · 21 Oct 2026 00:14 UTC |
| ojs-rest | 21 Oct 2026 00:14 UTC · ijbes | complete · ijbes · 21 Oct 2026 00:02 UTC |
| oai-pmh | 20 Oct 2026 19:49 UTC · ijbes | complete · ijbes · 20 Oct 2026 19:48 UTC |
| openalex-enrichment | 21 Oct 2026 00:14 UTC · ijbes | complete · ijbes · 21 Oct 2026 00:14 UTC |