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: 1 / 1 publications (100.0%). Latest observation: 21 Oct 2026, 00:14 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 00:14 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.
1 / 1 with data · 0 missing or unmatched. Percentages use all 1 selected publications.
1 / 1 with data · 0 missing or unmatched. Percentages use all 1 selected publications.
1 / 1 with data · 0 missing or unmatched. Percentages use all 1 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 | 1 | 1 | 1/1 | 1/1 |
| Publication year | Journal / scope | Crossref citations | Publications | Crossref known | OpenAlex known |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | All selected publications | 0 | 1 | 1/1 | 1/1 |
| Publication year | Journal / scope | OpenAlex citations | Publications | Crossref known | OpenAlex known |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 1 / 1 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): 2026-10-21T00:14:30.814659+00:00 — 2026-10-21T00:14:30.814659+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 | 1 | 1/1 |
| 2018 | All selected publications | 0 | 1 | 1/1 |
| 2019 | All selected publications | 0 | 1 | 1/1 |
| 2020 | All selected publications | 0 | 1 | 1/1 |
| 2021 | All selected publications | 0 | 1 | 1/1 |
| 2022 | All selected publications | 0 | 1 | 1/1 |
| 2023 | All selected publications | 0 | 1 | 1/1 |
| 2024 | All selected publications | 0 | 1 | 1/1 |
| 2025 | All selected publications | 0 | 1 | 1/1 |
| 2026 | All selected publications | 0 | 1 | 1/1 |
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 | 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 | 0 | 0 | 1/1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 | 1/1 · 100.0% |
* Percentage among publications with a known citation count.
While floods and droughts are natural occurrences in the earth’s hydrological cycle, their escalating frequency and intensity have become a major concern for governments throughout the globe. Developing nations, such as South Africa, are weary of these extreme weather events because they understand they lack the necessary resources and infrastructure to deal with them. The eThekwini Municipality serves as a prime example of how vulnerable developing nations' regions are to the devastating effects of floods and droughts, as multiple floods have devastated the area, resulting in fatalities, damaging public infrastructure, and demolishing houses. The scale of the damage from the floods reveals that significant gaps exist in disaster preparedness in the eThekwini Region. Rainfall forecasting is a vital tool that has been underutilised that can be used preemptively to manage or mitigate flooding and enhance water resource management in the region. Machine learning models in particular are very useful in rainfall forecasting; hence, the goal of this study was to evaluate the most efficient models for forecasting precipitation in the eThekwini northern and central regions, which are coastal and inland areas, respectively. Rainfall data spanning 32 years was obtained from meteorological stations in both regions, and the SARIMA, ARIMA, and ETS machine learning models were used for rainfall forecasting and evaluated based on their ability to capture seasonal patterns, handle non-stationarity, and provide accurate predictions. Model performance was analysed, and comparisons were made using the root mean squared error (RMSE), mean absolute error (MAE), and mean absolute scaled error (MASE) as evaluation metrics. The study's findings indicate that the most effective models for both the northern and central regions were SARIMA (0,0,0) (2,0,0) [12] and SARIMA (1,0,0) (1,0,0) [12]. These findings provide valuable insights for meteorologists, hydrologists, and policymakers involved in regional climate modelling and water resource management.
While floods and droughts are natural occurrences in the earth’s hydrological cycle, their escalating frequency and intensity have become a major concern for governments throughout the globe. Developing nations, such as South Africa, are weary of these extreme weather events because they understand they lack the necessary resources and infrastructure to deal with them. The eThekwini Municipality serves as a prime example of how vulnerable developing nations' regions are to the devastating effects of floods and droughts, as multiple floods have devastated the area, resulting in fatalities, damaging public infrastructure, and demolishing houses. The scale of the damage from the floods reveals that significant gaps exist in disaster preparedness in the eThekwini Region. Rainfall forecasting is a vital tool that has been underutilised that can be used preemptively to manage or mitigate flooding and enhance water resource management in the region. Machine learning models in particular are very useful in rainfall forecasting; hence, the goal of this study was to evaluate the most efficient models for forecasting precipitation in the eThekwini northern and central regions, which are coastal and inland areas, respectively. Rainfall data spanning 32 years was obtained from meteorological stations in both regions, and the SARIMA, ARIMA, and ETS machine learning models were used for rainfall forecasting and evaluated based on their ability to capture seasonal patterns, handle non-stationarity, and provide accurate predictions. Model performance was analysed, and comparisons were made using the root mean squared error (RMSE), mean absolute error (MAE), and mean absolute scaled error (MASE) as evaluation metrics. The study's findings indicate that the most effective models for both the northern and central regions were SARIMA (0,0,0) (2,0,0) [12] and SARIMA (1,0,0) (1,0,0) [12]. These findings provide valuable insights for meteorologists, hydrologists, and policymakers involved in regional climate modelling and water resource management.
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 00:14 UTC · ijbes | complete · ijbes · 21 Oct 2026 00:14 UTC |
| ojs-rest | 21 Oct 2026 00:14 UTC · ijbes | complete · ijbes · 21 Oct 2026 00:02 UTC |
| oai-pmh | 20 Oct 2026 19:49 UTC · ijbes | complete · ijbes · 20 Oct 2026 19:48 UTC |
| openalex-enrichment | 21 Oct 2026 00:14 UTC · ijbes | complete · ijbes · 21 Oct 2026 00:14 UTC |