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: 4 / 4 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: 22 Oct 2026 07:40 UTC — 23 Oct 2026 06:57 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.
4 / 4 with data · 0 missing or unmatched. Percentages use all 4 selected publications.
4 / 4 with data · 0 missing or unmatched. Percentages use all 4 selected publications.
4 / 4 with data · 0 missing or unmatched. Percentages use all 4 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 | 2 | 2 | 2/2 | 2/2 |
| 2024 | All selected publications | 0 | 0 | 0/0 | 0/0 |
| 2025 | All selected publications | 1 | 1 | 1/1 | 1/1 |
| 2026 | All selected publications | 1 | 1 | 1/1 | 1/1 |
| Publication year | Journal / scope | Crossref citations | Publications | Crossref known | OpenAlex known |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2023 | All selected publications | 2 | 2 | 2/2 | 2/2 |
| 2024 | All selected publications | — | 0 | 0/0 | 0/0 |
| 2025 | All selected publications | 0 | 1 | 1/1 | 1/1 |
| 2026 | All selected publications | 1 | 1 | 1/1 | 1/1 |
| Publication year | Journal / scope | OpenAlex citations | Publications | Crossref known | OpenAlex known |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2023 | All selected publications | 2 | 2 | 2/2 | 2/2 |
| 2024 | All selected publications | — | 0 | 0/0 | 0/0 |
| 2025 | All selected publications | 0 | 1 | 1/1 | 1/1 |
| 2026 | All selected publications | 1 | 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 4 / 4 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): 2026-10-22T07:40:16.899112+00:00 — 2026-10-23T06:57:52.370524+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 | 4 | 4/4 |
| 2018 | All selected publications | 0 | 4 | 4/4 |
| 2019 | All selected publications | 0 | 4 | 4/4 |
| 2020 | All selected publications | 0 | 4 | 4/4 |
| 2021 | All selected publications | 0 | 4 | 4/4 |
| 2022 | All selected publications | 0 | 4 | 4/4 |
| 2023 | All selected publications | 1 | 4 | 4/4 |
| 2024 | All selected publications | 0 | 4 | 4/4 |
| 2025 | All selected publications | 0 | 4 | 4/4 |
| 2026 | All selected publications | 2 | 4 | 4/4 |
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 | 2 |
| 2025 | 1 |
| 2026 | 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 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1/1 | 1.0 | 1 | 100.0 | 1/1 · 100.0% |
| International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science SSBFNET | 3 | 2 | 2 | 3/3 | 0.67 | 1 | 66.7 | 3/3 · 100.0% |
* Percentage among publications with a known citation count.
With the recent surge of mob justice in South Africa, this paper investigates whether recourse to mob justice serves a legitimate purpose and especially whether it serves justice or falls within the conceptual meaning of justice. In so doing, the paper undertook a literature review in view first to identify the possible causes of mob justice and whether or not mob justice serves a legitimate purpose in society. The literature reveals that mob justice aims to ensure security and maintain social order due to state inefficiency to provide security to its citizens. Mob justice becomes a mechanism of social control, policing, and society’s expression that the criminal justice system has failed. However, the paper could not find any related literature on the question whether mob justice falls within the philosophical concept of justice. It finds that the current discourse on mob justice literature focuses on the social and economic aspects of mob justice, delving into the possible reasons behind the attacks, or the legal aspects of mob justice. The paper is therefore relevant as its objective is to determine whether mob justice meets the conceptual meaning of justice and if there is a place for such conduct within a constitutional society. The paper found that mob justice falls short of the philosophical understanding of justice and is no more than injustice. It recommends a policy shift in the form of community involvement in policing.
South Africa and its policing system have been experiencing several incidents of vigilantism where community members partook in killing and administering “instant justice” to persons caught red-handed or suspected of engaging in criminal activities. Vigilantism has become a critical problem for the government, community members, and society. The study explores community perception regarding the incidents of vigilantism perpetuated in Thohoyandou and Musina within Vhembe District in the Limpopo Province. The study adopted an exploratory qualitative methodology. A non-random sampling that included purposive and snowball sampling was used to select the participants. Semi-structured interviews, observation and focus group discussions were used to collect data. Data were analysed using thematic data analysis. The study concludes that vigilantism is now an acute daily occurrence in South Africa. As such, it has brought some negative implications, loss of life, destruction of property, effects on the welfare of children and a vicious cycle of crime. Even though the criminal justice system is the scapegoat for all this, community members point to unemployment, poverty, and alcohol and drug abuse as some of the causes of vigilantism. The article recommends collaboration between state parties and the communities in the administration of justice to fight vigilantism.
Rehabilitation remains a core mandate of correctional services; however, in South African Correctional centres, particularly within Limpopo, its effectiveness is constrained by persistent structural and social barriers. Overcrowding, limited resources, unsafe environments, and the entrenched culture of gangsterism undermine rehabilitation initiatives and compromise both staff and inmate safety. Correctional officers, who play a central role in rehabilitation delivery, face excessive workloads, inadequate support, and poor working conditions, resulting in stress, burnout, and diminished service quality. These conditions contribute to ineffective rehabilitation, increased recidivism, premature inmate releases, and violations of offenders’ rights, raising concerns about the overall credibility of the criminal justice system. This study examined barriers to rehabilitation in Limpopo correctional centres, focusing on correctional officers’ experiences. A quantitative approach was adopted, with purposive sampling of 345 officers across six centres. Findings revealed that overcrowding is the most critical challenge, negatively affecting healthcare, accommodation, food provision, and access to training programmes, while weakening institutional control. Gangsterism, evolving from protection-based groups to networks of power and illicit trade, further obstructs rehabilitation. Officers reported unsafe conditions, exposure to violence, and shortages of resources, compounded by recruitment, retention, and training gaps. The study recommends diversion of minor offenders, deportation of foreign nationals, broader use of community corrections, enhanced anti-gangsterism strategies, and partnerships with external stakeholders to support sustainable rehabilitation.
Correctional officers’ attitudes and perceptions about the treatment of offenders can affect an inmate’s experience within a correctional institution. Correctional officers meet offenders daily, and their influence on how offenders experience their detention cannot be overestimated. The perception of correctional officers towards the rehabilitation of offenders needs to be investigated for the benefit of the department, community, and offenders. The study aimed to determine correctional officers' perceptions toward rehabilitating offenders. The study used a quantitative research approach. A probability purposive sampling approach was used to select the participants. The study found that correctional officers are key in communicating with offenders and providing trustworthy advice to improve their lives. Correctional officers working in correctional centres may assist in rehabilitating offenders by communicating needs and risks to parole officers, parole boards, judges, or probation officers. Offenders should be punished for the crime/s they have committed. Increasing the severity of punishment does little to deter crime. The study recommends that basic training of correctional officers should include issues of the rehabilitation of offenders. Correctional officers who engage offenders in rehabilitation should receive performance management bonuses. Moreover, correctional officers should be briefed on the content of the programmes offered by custodial therapists.
Rehabilitation remains a core mandate of correctional services; however, in South African Correctional centres, particularly within Limpopo, its effectiveness is constrained by persistent structural and social barriers. Overcrowding, limited resources, unsafe environments, and the entrenched culture of gangsterism undermine rehabilitation initiatives and compromise both staff and inmate safety. Correctional officers, who play a central role in rehabilitation delivery, face excessive workloads, inadequate support, and poor working conditions, resulting in stress, burnout, and diminished service quality. These conditions contribute to ineffective rehabilitation, increased recidivism, premature inmate releases, and violations of offenders’ rights, raising concerns about the overall credibility of the criminal justice system. This study examined barriers to rehabilitation in Limpopo correctional centres, focusing on correctional officers’ experiences. A quantitative approach was adopted, with purposive sampling of 345 officers across six centres. Findings revealed that overcrowding is the most critical challenge, negatively affecting healthcare, accommodation, food provision, and access to training programmes, while weakening institutional control. Gangsterism, evolving from protection-based groups to networks of power and illicit trade, further obstructs rehabilitation. Officers reported unsafe conditions, exposure to violence, and shortages of resources, compounded by recruitment, retention, and training gaps. The study recommends diversion of minor offenders, deportation of foreign nationals, broader use of community corrections, enhanced anti-gangsterism strategies, and partnerships with external stakeholders to support sustainable rehabilitation.
Correctional officers’ attitudes and perceptions about the treatment of offenders can affect an inmate’s experience within a correctional institution. Correctional officers meet offenders daily, and their influence on how offenders experience their detention cannot be overestimated. The perception of correctional officers towards the rehabilitation of offenders needs to be investigated for the benefit of the department, community, and offenders. The study aimed to determine correctional officers' perceptions toward rehabilitating offenders. The study used a quantitative research approach. A probability purposive sampling approach was used to select the participants. The study found that correctional officers are key in communicating with offenders and providing trustworthy advice to improve their lives. Correctional officers working in correctional centres may assist in rehabilitating offenders by communicating needs and risks to parole officers, parole boards, judges, or probation officers. Offenders should be punished for the crime/s they have committed. Increasing the severity of punishment does little to deter crime. The study recommends that basic training of correctional officers should include issues of the rehabilitation of offenders. Correctional officers who engage offenders in rehabilitation should receive performance management bonuses. Moreover, correctional officers should be briefed on the content of the programmes offered by custodial therapists.
With the recent surge of mob justice in South Africa, this paper investigates whether recourse to mob justice serves a legitimate purpose and especially whether it serves justice or falls within the conceptual meaning of justice. In so doing, the paper undertook a literature review in view first to identify the possible causes of mob justice and whether or not mob justice serves a legitimate purpose in society. The literature reveals that mob justice aims to ensure security and maintain social order due to state inefficiency to provide security to its citizens. Mob justice becomes a mechanism of social control, policing, and society’s expression that the criminal justice system has failed. However, the paper could not find any related literature on the question whether mob justice falls within the philosophical concept of justice. It finds that the current discourse on mob justice literature focuses on the social and economic aspects of mob justice, delving into the possible reasons behind the attacks, or the legal aspects of mob justice. The paper is therefore relevant as its objective is to determine whether mob justice meets the conceptual meaning of justice and if there is a place for such conduct within a constitutional society. The paper found that mob justice falls short of the philosophical understanding of justice and is no more than injustice. It recommends a policy shift in the form of community involvement in policing.
South Africa and its policing system have been experiencing several incidents of vigilantism where community members partook in killing and administering “instant justice” to persons caught red-handed or suspected of engaging in criminal activities. Vigilantism has become a critical problem for the government, community members, and society. The study explores community perception regarding the incidents of vigilantism perpetuated in Thohoyandou and Musina within Vhembe District in the Limpopo Province. The study adopted an exploratory qualitative methodology. A non-random sampling that included purposive and snowball sampling was used to select the participants. Semi-structured interviews, observation and focus group discussions were used to collect data. Data were analysed using thematic data analysis. The study concludes that vigilantism is now an acute daily occurrence in South Africa. As such, it has brought some negative implications, loss of life, destruction of property, effects on the welfare of children and a vicious cycle of crime. Even though the criminal justice system is the scapegoat for all this, community members point to unemployment, poverty, and alcohol and drug abuse as some of the causes of vigilantism. The article recommends collaboration between state parties and the communities in the administration of justice to fight vigilantism.
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 |