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 00:49 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2020 | All selected publications | 1 | 1 | 1/1 | 1/1 |
| 2021 | All selected publications | 0 | 0 | 0/0 | 0/0 |
| 2022 | All selected publications | 0 | 0 | 0/0 | 0/0 |
| 2023 | All selected publications | 1 | 1 | 1/1 | 1/1 |
| 2024 | All selected publications | 0 | 0 | 0/0 | 0/0 |
| 2025 | All selected publications | 1 | 1 | 1/1 | 1/1 |
| Publication year | Journal / scope | Crossref citations | Publications | Crossref known | OpenAlex known |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2020 | All selected publications | 0 | 1 | 1/1 | 1/1 |
| 2021 | All selected publications | — | 0 | 0/0 | 0/0 |
| 2022 | All selected publications | — | 0 | 0/0 | 0/0 |
| 2023 | All selected publications | 1 | 1 | 1/1 | 1/1 |
| 2024 | All selected publications | — | 0 | 0/0 | 0/0 |
| 2025 | All selected publications | 0 | 1 | 1/1 | 1/1 |
| Publication year | Journal / scope | OpenAlex citations | Publications | Crossref known | OpenAlex known |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2020 | All selected publications | 1 | 1 | 1/1 | 1/1 |
| 2021 | All selected publications | — | 0 | 0/0 | 0/0 |
| 2022 | All selected publications | — | 0 | 0/0 | 0/0 |
| 2023 | All selected publications | 1 | 1 | 1/1 | 1/1 |
| 2024 | All selected publications | — | 0 | 0/0 | 0/0 |
| 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): 2026-10-21T00:49:33.125451+00:00 — 2026-10-21T07:23:02.617437+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 | 1 | 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 ↗
Records with full publication dates only. 2026 is an incomplete year.
| Period | Publications |
|---|---|
| 2020-07 | 1 |
| 2023-12 | 1 |
| 2025-08 | 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 Research in Business and Social Science SSBFNET | 3 | 1 | 2 | 3/3 | 0.33 | 0 | 33.3 | 3/3 · 100.0% |
* Percentage among publications with a known citation count.
Intellectual Property Rights, or IPR, are essential for economic development and innovation, especially in the current digital era. However, certain aspects need to be considered in the context of Islamic financial law to ensure that IPR is applied relatively and by legal principles, especially law of Islam. This article analyzes the perspective of Islamic economic law regarding IPR in the current digital era, including its protection, use, and utilization. This study is a normative juridical study using a statute approach, which begins by investigating existing laws and regulations both in the positive legal framework and in the Islamic legal framework, which is based on the Koran, Hadith, and fatwas of the Ulama. Based on the study, it was found that even though IPR is not stated explicitly in the sharia, it refers to its essence, which is equated with property (mal), based on the norms, values, and principles contained in Islamic law, especially the mashed asy sharia theory, protection of IPR is very basic and integrated into the belief held by Muslims that Islam, which consists of monotheism, sharia, and morals, is an inseparable unity and illegal use of IPR is an injustice. The urgency of this study lies in the importance of IPR protection to encourage innovation and creativity in various fields, as well as the importance of considering Sharia principles in the use of IPR to provide optimal economic benefits for rights owners and society.
A discussion of pharmaceutical test data protection is a potentially broad area for scholarly investigation. During preclinical and clinical drug testing, test data that evidences safety, effectiveness, and quality is generated to obtain marketing approval by drug regulatory authorities. Depending on the nature of the information and the jurisdiction, such information may be protected as a trade secret or a patent. Protecting patents and pharmaceutical test data in the SADC has significant ethical, legal, and social implications (ELSI). While it is essential to incentivise research and development, it is also crucial to ensure that patients have access to safe and effective medicines and that the public interest is protected. SADC members have diverse approaches and laws on patents and pharmaceutical test data protection. While some countries have comprehensive legal frameworks that balance intellectual property rights with the public interest, others have outdated or incomplete frameworks. The lack or inadequacy of legal frameworks for patents and pharmaceutical test data protection in some SADC countries can negatively affect public health. This paper surveys and calibrates the existing legal frameworks within the SADC region by identifying gaps and suggesting possible law reform solutions inspired by the Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property (TRIPS) Agreement, other international frameworks, and comparative law. Using the reward theory as its theoretical lens and linking the main arguments to the obligation of patentees to disclose their inventions fully, the paper concludes that the SADC region requires adequate legal frameworks.
Indonesia’s trademark law does not provide provision for legal protection to registered mark which is well-known domestically therefore, there is no legal basis in case there is another party to commit in impersonation the said registered mark in the different kind of goods. On the other hand, protection indicates the address of international well-known marks only. Referring to the trademark law regime which is common universally such as can be found in the Paris Convention and TRIPs Agreement. Otherwise, for impersonation in different kinds of goods, the protection is given for a well- known mark only. However, the said mark must be recognized within the territory where the mark is called as well-known such in certain countries. The purpose of this study is to know the legal protection for the domestic well-known mark on impersonation of different kind of goods under Indonesia’s trademark law. This study is normative legal research with legislation, concept, and comparative approach. The legal material with technical analysis is done by the method of interpretation. Results of this study, The regulation of legal protection for registered trademark owners of impersonation of different kinds of goods should be reregulated (a reformulation of provisions). So that which is a well-known trademark can be in the form of domestic and internationally well-known, therefore the requirements for registration and commercializing of a mark in several countries, not as an obligation to obtain the rights and status become a well-known mark. However, when a mark is factually known and used in Indonesia, the wide scope of international well-known is no need as a mandatory.
A discussion of pharmaceutical test data protection is a potentially broad area for scholarly investigation. During preclinical and clinical drug testing, test data that evidences safety, effectiveness, and quality is generated to obtain marketing approval by drug regulatory authorities. Depending on the nature of the information and the jurisdiction, such information may be protected as a trade secret or a patent. Protecting patents and pharmaceutical test data in the SADC has significant ethical, legal, and social implications (ELSI). While it is essential to incentivise research and development, it is also crucial to ensure that patients have access to safe and effective medicines and that the public interest is protected. SADC members have diverse approaches and laws on patents and pharmaceutical test data protection. While some countries have comprehensive legal frameworks that balance intellectual property rights with the public interest, others have outdated or incomplete frameworks. The lack or inadequacy of legal frameworks for patents and pharmaceutical test data protection in some SADC countries can negatively affect public health. This paper surveys and calibrates the existing legal frameworks within the SADC region by identifying gaps and suggesting possible law reform solutions inspired by the Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property (TRIPS) Agreement, other international frameworks, and comparative law. Using the reward theory as its theoretical lens and linking the main arguments to the obligation of patentees to disclose their inventions fully, the paper concludes that the SADC region requires adequate legal frameworks.
Intellectual Property Rights, or IPR, are essential for economic development and innovation, especially in the current digital era. However, certain aspects need to be considered in the context of Islamic financial law to ensure that IPR is applied relatively and by legal principles, especially law of Islam. This article analyzes the perspective of Islamic economic law regarding IPR in the current digital era, including its protection, use, and utilization. This study is a normative juridical study using a statute approach, which begins by investigating existing laws and regulations both in the positive legal framework and in the Islamic legal framework, which is based on the Koran, Hadith, and fatwas of the Ulama. Based on the study, it was found that even though IPR is not stated explicitly in the sharia, it refers to its essence, which is equated with property (mal), based on the norms, values, and principles contained in Islamic law, especially the mashed asy sharia theory, protection of IPR is very basic and integrated into the belief held by Muslims that Islam, which consists of monotheism, sharia, and morals, is an inseparable unity and illegal use of IPR is an injustice. The urgency of this study lies in the importance of IPR protection to encourage innovation and creativity in various fields, as well as the importance of considering Sharia principles in the use of IPR to provide optimal economic benefits for rights owners and society.
Indonesia’s trademark law does not provide provision for legal protection to registered mark which is well-known domestically therefore, there is no legal basis in case there is another party to commit in impersonation the said registered mark in the different kind of goods. On the other hand, protection indicates the address of international well-known marks only. Referring to the trademark law regime which is common universally such as can be found in the Paris Convention and TRIPs Agreement. Otherwise, for impersonation in different kinds of goods, the protection is given for a well- known mark only. However, the said mark must be recognized within the territory where the mark is called as well-known such in certain countries. The purpose of this study is to know the legal protection for the domestic well-known mark on impersonation of different kind of goods under Indonesia’s trademark law. This study is normative legal research with legislation, concept, and comparative approach. The legal material with technical analysis is done by the method of interpretation. Results of this study, The regulation of legal protection for registered trademark owners of impersonation of different kinds of goods should be reregulated (a reformulation of provisions). So that which is a well-known trademark can be in the form of domestic and internationally well-known, therefore the requirements for registration and commercializing of a mark in several countries, not as an obligation to obtain the rights and status become a well-known mark. However, when a mark is factually known and used in Indonesia, the wide scope of international well-known is no need as a mandatory.
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 |