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 07:22 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 | 1 | 1 | 1/1 | 1/1 |
| 2022 | All selected publications | 0 | 0 | 0/0 | 0/0 |
| 2023 | All selected publications | 1 | 1 | 1/1 | 1/1 |
| Publication year | Journal / scope | Crossref citations | Publications | Crossref known | OpenAlex known |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2020 | All selected publications | 4 | 1 | 1/1 | 1/1 |
| 2021 | All selected publications | 2 | 1 | 1/1 | 1/1 |
| 2022 | All selected publications | — | 0 | 0/0 | 0/0 |
| 2023 | All selected publications | 1 | 1 | 1/1 | 1/1 |
| Publication year | Journal / scope | OpenAlex citations | Publications | Crossref known | OpenAlex known |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2020 | All selected publications | 4 | 1 | 1/1 | 1/1 |
| 2021 | All selected publications | 4 | 1 | 1/1 | 1/1 |
| 2022 | All selected publications | — | 0 | 0/0 | 0/0 |
| 2023 | 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 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): 2026-10-21T00:49:33.112729+00:00 — 2026-10-21T07:22:47.354052+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 | 1 | 3 | 3/3 |
| 2021 | All selected publications | 0 | 3 | 3/3 |
| 2022 | All selected publications | 1 | 3 | 3/3 |
| 2023 | All selected publications | 2 | 3 | 3/3 |
| 2024 | All selected publications | 0 | 3 | 3/3 |
| 2025 | All selected publications | 3 | 3 | 3/3 |
| 2026 | All selected publications | 2 | 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 |
| 2021-09 | 1 |
| 2023-03 | 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 | 7 | 9 | 3/3 | 2.33 | 2 | 100.0 | 3/3 · 100.0% |
* Percentage among publications with a known citation count.
In the labour relations literature, groups such as women, students, youth, youth who are neither employed nor in education or training (15-29-year-olds) disabled people, and retirees are accepted as “disadvantaged”. Although the employment of disadvantaged groups or unemployment indicators vary across countries, the employment of disadvantaged groups appears to be a common problem in many countries. In this context, in this study, it was conducted to investigate the dissimilarity of some disadvantaged groups in terms of employment and unemployment among OECD countries, including women, youth, youth who are neither employed nor in education or training. The most dissimilar countries tried to be determined in terms of variables handled within OECD countries. This determination was considered important to make comparisons correctly between countries. Since the most recent data in OECD and World Bank databases belong to 2018, countries that belong to this year and cover the most variables whenever possible are tried to be addressed. Multidimensional scaling analysis (MDS) was used in the research. In macro studies, Cluster or MDS analyses are generally preferred for cross country comparisons. MDS analysis is a method especially used to determine the dissimilarity between units. In this study, it was found that Turkey was the most dissimilar country in other OECD countries in terms of the variables that are used in the study. This study is due diligence and the results should not be considered as good or bad. There are very good examples of countries in the field of employment and social policy, and it is also important to evaluate the locations according to these countries in determining the main results.
This study aims to analyze the relationship between tourism policy, gender, and purusa culture in the provision of local labor and female gender, review gender-based tourism policies, compare theories such as the rule of law, welfare state theory, human rights theory, democratic theory. economics, and tourism empowerment theory. Also adopted the Boley & McGehee Population Empowerment model through the Tourism Scale (RETS). The method used in this study is normative juridical research with a statutory approach and a conceptual approach. The results of the systematic interpretive analysis show that the absorption of female labor is expressed as a product of structural and cultural forces, and domestic conditions around women's roles, therefore a combination of material and discursive analysis is needed to examine the socio-cultural relations of tourism policy production, the response to the absence of equality. gender in the middle of purusa culture. Workforce competency certificates that comply with the ACCSTP (ASEAN Common Competency Standards for Tourism Professionals) criteria are a preventive alternative for women to be able to target jobs in the public sector and the readiness of countries as ASEAN member countries.
This article focused on the under-researched concept of work intensification among domestic workers. Domestic work in Zimbabwe remains a primary source of employment for rudimentary qualified women in both rural and urban areas. This prompted the need for this research to understand better two essential dimensions of an employer-worker relationship, work intensification and job satisfaction. The sample comprised 25 participants, of whom 15 were domestic workers, and 10 were employers of domestic workers. The research used a qualitative approach to understand better the dynamics of work intensification among rural women employed as domestic workers in rural Zimbabwe. Our findings show that employers bring about work intensification in domestic work settings. This is further exacerbated by unpaid overtime hours. Moreover, work intensification in the studied sample deteriorates job satisfaction and relations between employer and employee. As a result, productivity dwindles in the long term because of exhaustion and burnout.
This article focused on the under-researched concept of work intensification among domestic workers. Domestic work in Zimbabwe remains a primary source of employment for rudimentary qualified women in both rural and urban areas. This prompted the need for this research to understand better two essential dimensions of an employer-worker relationship, work intensification and job satisfaction. The sample comprised 25 participants, of whom 15 were domestic workers, and 10 were employers of domestic workers. The research used a qualitative approach to understand better the dynamics of work intensification among rural women employed as domestic workers in rural Zimbabwe. Our findings show that employers bring about work intensification in domestic work settings. This is further exacerbated by unpaid overtime hours. Moreover, work intensification in the studied sample deteriorates job satisfaction and relations between employer and employee. As a result, productivity dwindles in the long term because of exhaustion and burnout.
This study aims to analyze the relationship between tourism policy, gender, and purusa culture in the provision of local labor and female gender, review gender-based tourism policies, compare theories such as the rule of law, welfare state theory, human rights theory, democratic theory. economics, and tourism empowerment theory. Also adopted the Boley & McGehee Population Empowerment model through the Tourism Scale (RETS). The method used in this study is normative juridical research with a statutory approach and a conceptual approach. The results of the systematic interpretive analysis show that the absorption of female labor is expressed as a product of structural and cultural forces, and domestic conditions around women's roles, therefore a combination of material and discursive analysis is needed to examine the socio-cultural relations of tourism policy production, the response to the absence of equality. gender in the middle of purusa culture. Workforce competency certificates that comply with the ACCSTP (ASEAN Common Competency Standards for Tourism Professionals) criteria are a preventive alternative for women to be able to target jobs in the public sector and the readiness of countries as ASEAN member countries.
In the labour relations literature, groups such as women, students, youth, youth who are neither employed nor in education or training (15-29-year-olds) disabled people, and retirees are accepted as “disadvantaged”. Although the employment of disadvantaged groups or unemployment indicators vary across countries, the employment of disadvantaged groups appears to be a common problem in many countries. In this context, in this study, it was conducted to investigate the dissimilarity of some disadvantaged groups in terms of employment and unemployment among OECD countries, including women, youth, youth who are neither employed nor in education or training. The most dissimilar countries tried to be determined in terms of variables handled within OECD countries. This determination was considered important to make comparisons correctly between countries. Since the most recent data in OECD and World Bank databases belong to 2018, countries that belong to this year and cover the most variables whenever possible are tried to be addressed. Multidimensional scaling analysis (MDS) was used in the research. In macro studies, Cluster or MDS analyses are generally preferred for cross country comparisons. MDS analysis is a method especially used to determine the dissimilarity between units. In this study, it was found that Turkey was the most dissimilar country in other OECD countries in terms of the variables that are used in the study. This study is due diligence and the results should not be considered as good or bad. There are very good examples of countries in the field of employment and social policy, and it is also important to evaluate the locations according to these countries in determining the main results.
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 |