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: 2 / 2 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 07:23 UTC — 22 Oct 2026 01:09 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.
2 / 2 with data · 0 missing or unmatched. Percentages use all 2 selected publications.
2 / 2 with data · 0 missing or unmatched. Percentages use all 2 selected publications.
2 / 2 with data · 0 missing or unmatched. Percentages use all 2 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | All selected publications | 2 | 2 | 2/2 | 2/2 |
| Publication year | Journal / scope | Crossref citations | Publications | Crossref known | OpenAlex known |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | All selected publications | 0 | 2 | 2/2 | 2/2 |
| Publication year | Journal / scope | OpenAlex citations | Publications | Crossref known | OpenAlex known |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | 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 2 / 2 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): 2026-10-21T07:23:04.005501+00:00 — 2026-10-22T01:09:17.984824+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 | 2 | 2/2 |
| 2018 | All selected publications | 0 | 2 | 2/2 |
| 2019 | All selected publications | 0 | 2 | 2/2 |
| 2020 | All selected publications | 0 | 2 | 2/2 |
| 2021 | All selected publications | 0 | 2 | 2/2 |
| 2022 | All selected publications | 0 | 2 | 2/2 |
| 2023 | All selected publications | 0 | 2 | 2/2 |
| 2024 | All selected publications | 0 | 2 | 2/2 |
| 2025 | All selected publications | 0 | 2 | 2/2 |
| 2026 | All selected publications | 0 | 2 | 2/2 |
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 |
|---|---|
| 2025 | 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 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1/1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 | 1/1 · 100.0% |
* Percentage among publications with a known citation count.
This research assesses the levels of digital financial literacy (DFL) and the patterns of Fintech adoption among university students in South Africa. It expands the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) framework to investigate the impact of demographic factors on DFL as a precursor to Fintech utilisation. A quantitative methodology utilised convenience sampling to distribute 376 questionnaires at two public universities in South Africa. Data analysis employed descriptive statistics, exploratory factor analysis, Kruskal-Wallis tests, and multiple linear regression using IBM SPSS version 29.0, with reliability evaluated through Cronbach's alpha coefficients. Findings reveal moderate to high levels of DFL among university students; however, notable knowledge deficiencies exist concerning consumer rights and redress mechanisms. Demographic analysis indicated that gender had no significant impact on DFL levels, whereas income, age, and educational attainment showed significant correlations. Three components of DFL demonstrated positive and significant correlations with university students' intentions to adopt Fintech products and services; however, awareness of digital financial risks did not significantly influence these adoption intentions. The findings enhance the theoretical framework of technology acceptance models in emerging markets and offer empirical evidence regarding DFL's influence on Fintech adoption. This study provides evidence-based recommendations for policymakers, financial institutions, and educational administrators aiming to improve financial inclusion initiatives and increase Fintech utilisation among university students in South Africa.
In South Africa, only 6% of the population is expected to retire with financial independence, and the implementation of the Two-Pot retirement system in September 2024 exacerbates the retirement savings dilemma, underscoring an urgent necessity for creative retirement planning solutions. This article thoroughly delineates the present status of research into the utilisation of Robo-advisors in retirement planning. This analysis evaluates the appropriateness and feasibility of employing Robo-advisors to enhance and democratise digital financial advice within the context of a developing economy like South Africa, particularly through the adoption of the Two-Pot retirement scheme. A comprehensive literature analysis was conducted utilising the Emerald Insight, ProQuest, and Scopus databases to find peer-reviewed journal articles published between 2019 and 2024. These articles critically assessed the function of Robo-advisors in democratising financial advice, providing a cost-efficient, accessible, and perhaps less biassed alternative to conventional advising services. The study highlights the imperative for future research to guarantee the ethical, transparent, and controlled implementation of robo-advisory services in South Africa. The literature analysis delineates five pertinent study themes: emerging literature on Robo-advisors, behavioural dimensions, risk assessment, regulatory frameworks, and Robo-advisor characteristics pertinent to the South African retirement context, considering the Two-Pot retirement system.The report delineates potential research opportunities for each highlighted issue to aid scholars in performing empirical investigations aimed at optimising retirement planning in South Africa through the use of Robo-advisors.
In South Africa, only 6% of the population is expected to retire with financial independence, and the implementation of the Two-Pot retirement system in September 2024 exacerbates the retirement savings dilemma, underscoring an urgent necessity for creative retirement planning solutions. This article thoroughly delineates the present status of research into the utilisation of Robo-advisors in retirement planning. This analysis evaluates the appropriateness and feasibility of employing Robo-advisors to enhance and democratise digital financial advice within the context of a developing economy like South Africa, particularly through the adoption of the Two-Pot retirement scheme. A comprehensive literature analysis was conducted utilising the Emerald Insight, ProQuest, and Scopus databases to find peer-reviewed journal articles published between 2019 and 2024. These articles critically assessed the function of Robo-advisors in democratising financial advice, providing a cost-efficient, accessible, and perhaps less biassed alternative to conventional advising services. The study highlights the imperative for future research to guarantee the ethical, transparent, and controlled implementation of robo-advisory services in South Africa. The literature analysis delineates five pertinent study themes: emerging literature on Robo-advisors, behavioural dimensions, risk assessment, regulatory frameworks, and Robo-advisor characteristics pertinent to the South African retirement context, considering the Two-Pot retirement system.The report delineates potential research opportunities for each highlighted issue to aid scholars in performing empirical investigations aimed at optimising retirement planning in South Africa through the use of Robo-advisors.
This research assesses the levels of digital financial literacy (DFL) and the patterns of Fintech adoption among university students in South Africa. It expands the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) framework to investigate the impact of demographic factors on DFL as a precursor to Fintech utilisation. A quantitative methodology utilised convenience sampling to distribute 376 questionnaires at two public universities in South Africa. Data analysis employed descriptive statistics, exploratory factor analysis, Kruskal-Wallis tests, and multiple linear regression using IBM SPSS version 29.0, with reliability evaluated through Cronbach's alpha coefficients. Findings reveal moderate to high levels of DFL among university students; however, notable knowledge deficiencies exist concerning consumer rights and redress mechanisms. Demographic analysis indicated that gender had no significant impact on DFL levels, whereas income, age, and educational attainment showed significant correlations. Three components of DFL demonstrated positive and significant correlations with university students' intentions to adopt Fintech products and services; however, awareness of digital financial risks did not significantly influence these adoption intentions. The findings enhance the theoretical framework of technology acceptance models in emerging markets and offer empirical evidence regarding DFL's influence on Fintech adoption. This study provides evidence-based recommendations for policymakers, financial institutions, and educational administrators aiming to improve financial inclusion initiatives and increase Fintech utilisation among university students in South Africa.
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 |