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: 23 / 23 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 00:14 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.
22 / 23 with data · 1 missing or unmatched. Percentages use all 23 selected publications.
22 / 23 with data · 1 missing or unmatched. Percentages use all 23 selected publications.
23 / 23 with data · 0 missing or unmatched. Percentages use all 23 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2022 | All selected publications | 1 | 1 | 1/1 | 1/1 |
| 2023 | All selected publications | 4 | 4 | 4/4 | 4/4 |
| 2024 | All selected publications | 2 | 2 | 2/2 | 2/2 |
| 2025 | All selected publications | 7 | 7 | 7/7 | 7/7 |
| 2026 | All selected publications | 9 | 9 | 9/9 | 9/9 |
| Publication year | Journal / scope | Crossref citations | Publications | Crossref known | OpenAlex known |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2022 | All selected publications | 4 | 1 | 1/1 | 1/1 |
| 2023 | All selected publications | 20 | 4 | 4/4 | 4/4 |
| 2024 | All selected publications | 3 | 2 | 2/2 | 2/2 |
| 2025 | All selected publications | 7 | 7 | 7/7 | 7/7 |
| 2026 | All selected publications | 1 | 9 | 9/9 | 9/9 |
| Publication year | Journal / scope | OpenAlex citations | Publications | Crossref known | OpenAlex known |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2022 | All selected publications | 3 | 1 | 1/1 | 1/1 |
| 2023 | All selected publications | 26 | 4 | 4/4 | 4/4 |
| 2024 | All selected publications | 3 | 2 | 2/2 | 2/2 |
| 2025 | All selected publications | 7 | 7 | 7/7 | 7/7 |
| 2026 | All selected publications | 1 | 9 | 9/9 | 9/9 |
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 23 / 23 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): 2026-10-21T00:14:26.882086+00:00 — 2026-10-21T07:23:08.961395+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 | 23 | 23/23 |
| 2018 | All selected publications | 0 | 23 | 23/23 |
| 2019 | All selected publications | 0 | 23 | 23/23 |
| 2020 | All selected publications | 0 | 23 | 23/23 |
| 2021 | All selected publications | 0 | 23 | 23/23 |
| 2022 | All selected publications | 0 | 23 | 23/23 |
| 2023 | All selected publications | 6 | 23 | 23/23 |
| 2024 | All selected publications | 12 | 23 | 23/23 |
| 2025 | All selected publications | 9 | 23 | 23/23 |
| 2026 | All selected publications | 13 | 23 | 23/23 |
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 |
|---|---|
| 2022 | 1 |
| 2023 | 4 |
| 2024 | 2 |
| 2025 | 7 |
| 2026 | 9 |
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 | 7 | 6 | 6 | 7/7 | 0.86 | 0 | 28.6 | 7/7 · 100.0% |
| International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science SSBFNET | 16 | 29 | 34 | 16/16 | 1.81 | 1.0 | 56.2 | 16/16 · 100.0% |
* Percentage among publications with a known citation count.
Gender-based violence and femicide (GBVF) is a multifaceted complex phenomenon that needs urgent comprehensive attention in South Africa and other similarly or worse-off affected countries. Central to combating and eliminating GBVF starts with a systematic understanding of the drivers of GBVF. The research aims to develop a conceptual framework of drivers of gender-based violence and femicide, which can be applied to different GVBF improvement studies. The conceptual framework was developed using ecological system theory having 20 indicators relating to: microsystem – personal history and individual factors; mesosystem – interpersonal relationships; exosystem – community factors; macrosystem – societal factors; and chronosystem – significant changes over time. The framework interlinking these GBVF drivers allows for the diagnosis of the main drivers of GBVF and estimates its impact on the victims and their families. This, in turn, can help to combat and eliminate GBVF through moderation with GBVF policies and strategies. This study contributes to systematically demystifying of drivers of GBVF, especially in South Africa and similar African countries.
The crucial mandate for any state is that learners attain their education in a safe learning environment. Learners’ access to a high-quality, inclusive, equitable education, and their capacity are jeopardised by the pervasive gender-based violence in and around schools. This paper aims to investigate the impact of gender-based violence on girls in the selected secondary schools in Limpopo Province of South Africa. From the qualitative standpoint, coupled with the case study research design, this study used a purposive sample to select 15 (n = 15) participants. Data were collected through literature reviews and the application of semi-structured Key Informant Interviews and analysed using Thematic Analysis. The findings of this study include (i) low school performance, (ii) learners who are dropping out, (iii) learners’ inability to exercise their human rights and their right to an education, (iv) lack of a well-resourced and strong criminal justice system, and (v) an intervention team to address the impact of gender-based violence on girls. This study concludes that gender-based violence should be taught as a subject in schools to address the persistent issue in South Africa for learners to understand abuse and violation in the future. This paper recommends that all stakeholders in our society—civil, social workers, and law enforcement authorities—collaborate more closely than they currently do to end gender-based violence against schoolgirls.
South Africa has been battling the scourge of the COVID-19 Pandemic which has negatively affected many individuals and families. The South African government imposed a national lockdown to mitigate the negative impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the lockdown also brought more challenges such as increased violence cases. Against this background, this study sought to analyse the COVID-19 lockdown and domestic violence in South Africa. A non-empirical research design was used where documents from search engines such as Google scholar, EBSCOhost and ProQuest were sampled and reviewed using keywords and phrases related to COVID-19, lockdown and domestic violence to filter relevant data, restricted to 2002-2022. The inductive Thematic Content Analysis (TCA) was used to analyze the collected data. Findings reveal that the South African Lockdown has contributed to the rise of domestic violence cases during the COVID-19 pandemic. Results further indicate that victims of domestic violence face psychosocial challenges due to domestic violence. Programs that are aimed at creating awareness and empowering victims of domestic violence are recommended by this study. It is further recommended that policies protecting citizens against domestic violence be reviewed and strengthened.
Globally, alcohol use is an important public health concern which often contributes to Intimate Partner Violence (IPV/F), Femicide and Gender Based Violence (GBV). Interfacing of alcohol use and intimate partner violence in under-resourced and rural areas has received little empirical attention and interventions for enlightening the crisis of IPV and related social ills. This paper explored the nexus between alcohol use and intimate partner violence in under-resourced and rural areas. The study employed a qualitative, exploratory multiple case study design. Purposive, snowballing and convenience sampling techniques were employed. The study was cleared ethically by the registered body at the university. Data was analysed thematically. This study found that the majority of the cases showed a linkage between intimate partner violence and substance abuse incidents. It can be concluded that the availability and affordability of alcohol play a role in IPV. Awareness campaigns about the linkage between substance abuse and IPV should be implemented.
Gender-based violence (GBV) is increasingly gaining local and international attention. South Africa has been experiencing high volume of GBV cases. Men are unable to report gender-based violence cases because of fears for discrimination, labelling and cultural norms. Traditionally, men are expected to be strong despite the difficulties experienced. Although there is high unequal implementation of programs and policies that caters for GBV, male victims continue to suffer because the societal perception, stigmatization, and discrimination. Notwithstanding the existing policies, men continue to become victims of gender-based violence at an alarming rate. Gender-based violence against men has disturbing effects which includes physical effects, mental health illness, sexual dysfunctionality suicide and femicide. Men significantly suffer gender-based violence which this leads to lack of self-expression due to societal expectations and finding it difficult to seek help and report about the abuse. This mostly results to divorce, homicides and other mental related problems. The purpose of the study was to explore the destructive effects of gender-based violence against men in South Africa. The study employed the qualitative research approach with exploratory research design adopted. A sample of 14 male victims of gender-based violence was chosen for the purpose of the study. The study used interviews with semi-structured interview schedule used to guide the session. Purposive sampling technique was used with thematic content used for data analysis process. Among the many effects experienced, the study established the physical, mental health problems, sexual dysfunctionality, suicide and homicide to be the main effects of gender-based violence against men. Family systems theory was found to be relevant in the study to understand the dynamics of gender-based violence.
Proverbs form a vital component of African indigenous knowledge systems, embedding moral guidance, social norms, and intergenerational wisdom. This article offers a contemporary reinterpretation of the Setswana proverb “Monna ke selepe, wa adingwa” (“a man is an axe; he is borrowed”) within the context of gender-based violence (GBV), intimate partner violence, and father absenteeism in South Africa. Traditionally linked to male mobility within extended family networks, the proverb is reframed as a metaphor for the transmission of positive masculine values, ethical guidance, and communal mentorship rather than the physical presence or ownership of men. Drawing on an integrative literature review that synthesises scholarship on Indigenous Knowledge Systems, critical and positive masculinity theories, and strengths-based social work approaches, the article demonstrates how culturally resonant symbols can bridge tradition and contemporary practice. Findings highlight the underutilisation of indigenous narratives in GBV prevention, the enduring influence of hegemonic masculinities, and the interconnectedness of father absence with cycles of violence and relational instability. The discussion advances practical implications for social work, proposing the integration of proverb-based dialogues into community interventions, fatherhood programmes, and mentorship initiatives. By positioning the “axe” as a transferable resource of wisdom and responsibility, the article contributes to the decolonisation of social work practice and offers a culturally grounded pathway toward non-violent, accountable, and relational masculinities that support GBV prevention and strengthen communal care.
Gender-based violence (GBV) remains a major human rights violation and a serious public health concern affecting women worldwide. Approximately one in three women globally experiences physical or sexual violence during their lifetime. In South Africa, the prevalence of gender-based violence is particularly high, exposing many women to significant physical, psychological, and emotional harm. Female nurses are a vulnerable group because they may experience violence in both their personal lives and professional environments. Their frequent interaction with patients, patients' families, and the broader public can increase their risk of meeting violent or aggressive behaviour within healthcare settings. Exposure to such experiences may negatively affect nurses' psychological well-being, job performance, and overall quality of life. The study explores the psychological effects of exposure to gender-based violence among female nurses in South Africa. The study aimed at examining how exposure to GBV influenced nurses' mental and emotional well-being as well as their ability to function effectively in their professional roles. The study adopted a qualitative desktop research approach to examine existing literature related to gender-based violence and its psychological impact on female nurses. Relevant peer-reviewed journal articles, academic books, government reports, and policy documents were reviewed and analysed. The data collected were analysed using thematic analysis to find key patterns and themes within the literature. The study looked to enhance understanding of the psychological challenges faced by female nurses and to highlight the importance of workplace interventions, support systems, and policies that promote nurses' safety and mental well-being in healthcare environments. Institutional Review Board Statement: Ethical review and approval were waived for this study because the research does not deal with vulnerable groups or sensitive issues.
Gender-based violence undermines women's safety, dignity, and socioeconomic participation, particularly in rural communities where access to formal protection services may be constrained. This study examined how the Lunungwi Royal Council contributes to a culturally grounded rural protection ecosystem in Thulamela Local Municipality, South Africa. Guided by Afrocentricity, Sankofa, ecosystem theory, and collaborative governance, the study adopted an interpretive qualitative case-study design. Nine participants were purposively selected, comprising six Royal Council members, a community-based participant, a young representative, and an Indigenous knowledge holder. Data were generated through individual face-to-face semi-structured interviews and analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. The findings indicate that the Council provides culturally accessible reporting, temporary safety, mediation, moral education, and connections with community policing and social-service structures. Its effectiveness is constrained by limited professional training, unclear institutional boundaries, informal referral arrangements, inadequate documentation, social pressure, and women's economic dependence. The study proposes a Culturally Grounded Rural Protection Ecosystem Framework integrating Indigenous governance, community protection, statutory, professional services, economic empowerment, and coordinated accountability. Cultural legitimacy can strengthen GBV responses when combined with survivor-centred procedures, constitutional accountability, and women's socioeconomic agency.
Gender-based violence (GBV) is widely recognised as a serious human rights issue; however, the experiences of male victims remain largely overlooked and underreported. This study explores the silent and often ignored reality of GBV against men within the Polokwane Municipality of Limpopo Province, South Africa. While dominant narratives frequently position GBV as violence perpetrated by men against women, this research sheds light on the growing, yet muted, phenomenon of male victimisation. Using a qualitative case study approach, data were gathered from ten purposively selected participants through semi-structured interviews, including an in-depth session with a key informant. Thematic analysis was employed to interpret the findings. The study reveals that male victims frequently suffer psychological abuse, emotional neglect, and social isolation. Deeply entrenched gender norms, societal expectations of masculinity, and fear of stigma significantly hinder men from seeking help. Furthermore, a lack of targeted support services and a predominant focus of existing GBV frameworks on women and children leaves male survivors marginalised. This research emphasises the need for inclusive and gender-sensitive interventions, including awareness campaigns to challenge stereotypes and the development of support systems responsive to male experiences. By highlighting these gaps, the study contributes to a broader and more equitable understanding of GBV, advocating for policies that support all survivors, regardless of gender.
Gender-based violence (GBV) against women is one of the most widespread and long-established social issues in South Africa that is conditioned by historical, cultural, and structural factors that have created a normalized environment of male dominance and accepted different types of gendered violence. This study provides a sociological explanation of GBV in terms of power and patriarchy and structural inequality area and how these interconnected factors create and maintain violence in intimate relationships, families, and the broader social institution. Using the feminist theory, intersectionality and sociological theory of power relations, the research questions the role of cultural norms, economic dependence, socialisation process as well as institutional failures in causing high incidences of violence against women. However, even after the enactment of progressive laws, including Domestic Violence Act, Sexual Offences Act, etc, the lived conditions of women still portray the vulnerabilities of the system to historical disparities, deep-rooted patriarchal philosophies and gender hierarchies. A qualitative research design was used to gather the data, where in-depth interviews, focus group and documentary analysis of women who have experienced GBV, community members and key informants including social workers, activists and legal practitioners were used to collect data. It shows that the patriarchal systems of power exist on a variety of levels family, community, cultural and institutional to naturalize violence, victimize the victim, and absolve the criminal. Results participants affirm the importance of social norms of masculinity, poverty, inequality in access to resources, and inadequate institutional responses in perpetuating fear, dependence, and subsequent exposure to violence within women. In addition, the study demonstrates how the combination of poverty, race, rurality, and social support services worsen the vulnerability of women, which leads to a reflexive relationship in which violence turns into an individual and societal problem. This study concludes that GBV in South Africa cannot be examined solely as the instances of violence but should be examined as the expression of unequal power relations, which can be found within social structures. The solution to GBV would therefore have to be multi-level and involves efforts to confront patriarchal norms, foster community accountability, bolster legal protection, and increase socio-economic opportunities of women. The results add to the existing pool of sociological research on the topic of gender and violence, providing an important insight into the reasons why GBV continues to be a problem and the changes in the structure that are required in order to mitigate it.
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 |