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, 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.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2024 | All selected publications | 1 | 1 | 1/1 | 1/1 |
| 2025 | All selected publications | 2 | 2 | 2/2 | 2/2 |
| 2026 | All selected publications | 1 | 1 | 1/1 | 1/1 |
| Publication year | Journal / scope | Crossref citations | Publications | Crossref known | OpenAlex known |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2024 | All selected publications | 0 | 1 | 1/1 | 1/1 |
| 2025 | All selected publications | 0 | 2 | 2/2 | 2/2 |
| 2026 | All selected publications | 0 | 1 | 1/1 | 1/1 |
| Publication year | Journal / scope | OpenAlex citations | Publications | Crossref known | OpenAlex known |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2024 | All selected publications | 0 | 1 | 1/1 | 1/1 |
| 2025 | All selected publications | 0 | 2 | 2/2 | 2/2 |
| 2026 | 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 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): 2026-10-21T00:14:30.786842+00:00 — 2026-10-21T00:14:35.701578+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 | 0 | 4 | 4/4 |
| 2024 | All selected publications | 0 | 4 | 4/4 |
| 2025 | All selected publications | 0 | 4 | 4/4 |
| 2026 | All selected publications | 0 | 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 |
|---|---|
| 2024 | 1 |
| 2025 | 2 |
| 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 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 4/4 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 4/4 · 100.0% |
* Percentage among publications with a known citation count.
This present study aims to expand the general understanding of bullying behaviour and to advance knowledge about bullying among pupils in public schools. Bullying is a global issue that can significantly impact learners’ educational and personal development. This paper analysed the complex and multi-faceted phenomenon of bullying, its prevalence, and its effect on learners in five public schools in Gauteng and Northwest provinces, South Africa. A quantitative approach was applied using questionnaires to a sample of 169 secondary public-school learners. The data were analysed using IBM SPSS Version 23, employing ANOVA tests, Pearson correlations, and Chi-square tests, as well as descriptive statistics. The results show that, like males, a considerable proportion of female learners (varying from 70.7% to 90.2%) reported never engaging in bullying behaviour at school. This study's findings show that bullying happens in schools. For example, a small percentage of females engage in bullying behaviour at varied frequencies: infrequently (5.4-20.7%), twice to three times a month (0-5.4%), weekly (0-2.8%), and daily (1.1-8.7%). Despite the low frequency of bullying, 2.2% of female learners report experiencing physical bullying, such as kicking and hitting on a weekly or daily basis. These results highlight the contextual and cultural specificity of bullying. Authors encourage further research to better understand this nuanced and complex phenomenon, focusing not only on victims but also on bystanders. Addressing bullying requires a comprehensive approach to promoting a healthy learning environment for all learners.
Cyberbullying is the most common form of violence and aggression that affects the wellbeing of learners during their schooling days. Globally, cyberbullying is increasingly gaining recognition among the social scientists. It is locally becoming a phenomenon that is problematic threatening the mental health of learners. The phenomenon of cyberbullying violates the human rights of learners as outlined in the Constitution of South Africa. Bullying is a phenomenon that is destructive in nature and brings out the culture of violence in learning environment. Cyberbullying is a complex social issue and has close association with mental health illness/problems. It has consequence which includes, trauma, drop in school performance, school dropout and suicide. Cyberbullying is not a new concept among social workers because of their involvement with the phenomenon daily. Cyberbullying involves the use of social media, technology and texts to inflict harm on the victims. The study adopted the qualitative research approach, and this approach was used to provide the knowledge about the destructive nature of cyberbullying on learners in schools. The primary goal of this study was to develop an in-depth knowledge on the destruction or learners in schools. Face-to-face, semi-structured interviews was used in the study with the adoption of purposive technique of sampling. The Interview guide was utilized as a data collection instrument exploratory research designs was employed. The researcher obtained permission from the participants prior to data collection and sought permission for the audio-recording of the participants. The study applied the thematic content as a method of data analysis. The study employed two theoretical framework which were ecological approach and the strength-based approach. The study found that emotional, psychological and educational effects are some of the destructive effects of bullying which puts too much pressure on learners.
The rapid advancement of technology has changed the world's civilization rapidly and provided many benefits to humans in various activities. Every individual, from children to adults will adapt to technology because daily life is very interchangeable to the use of technology, especially the internet to access social media, watch movies to find the latest news that spreads quickly. This study aims to identify the influence of Empathy, Self-Control and Parenting Style on adolescent Cyberbullying Behavior on Instagram social media. This study uses a quantitative method with a sampling technique, namely purposive sampling involving as many as 104 adolescent Instagram users as respondents. The instrument in this study is in the form of a questionnaire that is distributed through Google Form. The data of this study was tested using SPSS (Statistical Product and Service Solutions) software. The results of this study show that Empathy has a positive and significant influence on Cyberbullying behavior.Self-Control has a negative but not significant influence on Cyberbullying behavior. Parenting has a positive but also insignificant influence on Cyberbullying behavior. The results of this study indicate that the empathy factor is more dominant in influencing adolescent cyberbullying behavior when compared to self-control and parenting style.
Bullying is the aggression, violence, and threats that are targeted at the victims who are perceived to be weak. Learners living with disabilities are not immune to the phenomenon of bullying. Due to their vulnerability, they are targeted by bullies within the learning environment. Learners living with disabilities are targeted physically, emotionally, and through the use of technology. Learners fear reporting incidents of bullying because of the lack of action and consequences for the perpetrators of bullying. There is a huge increase in bullying incidents at schools against learners living with disabilities because of the inability to report the violence and harassment caused by the perpetrators to the victims of bullying. The learners living with disabilities are being taken advantage of by the perpetrators because of the fear of reporting violent behaviour to the teachers at school. The study applied the qualitative research method to explain the fears and inability to report bullying incidents by learners living with disabilities. Snowball sampling was used to select the study population within different schools, with a sample of about 11 learners considered. An exploratory research design was adopted in this study to explore the challenges experienced by the victims of bullying with regard to the fears of reporting bullying incidents. The study has adopted the interview as an instrument for collecting data. Thematic analysis was used to analyze the information collected from the learners living with disabilities. The study has observed the ethical considerations to ensure respect for the rights of the participants and universal observations for studies that involve human beings.
This present study aims to expand the general understanding of bullying behaviour and to advance knowledge about bullying among pupils in public schools. Bullying is a global issue that can significantly impact learners’ educational and personal development. This paper analysed the complex and multi-faceted phenomenon of bullying, its prevalence, and its effect on learners in five public schools in Gauteng and Northwest provinces, South Africa. A quantitative approach was applied using questionnaires to a sample of 169 secondary public-school learners. The data were analysed using IBM SPSS Version 23, employing ANOVA tests, Pearson correlations, and Chi-square tests, as well as descriptive statistics. The results show that, like males, a considerable proportion of female learners (varying from 70.7% to 90.2%) reported never engaging in bullying behaviour at school. This study's findings show that bullying happens in schools. For example, a small percentage of females engage in bullying behaviour at varied frequencies: infrequently (5.4-20.7%), twice to three times a month (0-5.4%), weekly (0-2.8%), and daily (1.1-8.7%). Despite the low frequency of bullying, 2.2% of female learners report experiencing physical bullying, such as kicking and hitting on a weekly or daily basis. These results highlight the contextual and cultural specificity of bullying. Authors encourage further research to better understand this nuanced and complex phenomenon, focusing not only on victims but also on bystanders. Addressing bullying requires a comprehensive approach to promoting a healthy learning environment for all learners.
Cyberbullying is the most common form of violence and aggression that affects the wellbeing of learners during their schooling days. Globally, cyberbullying is increasingly gaining recognition among the social scientists. It is locally becoming a phenomenon that is problematic threatening the mental health of learners. The phenomenon of cyberbullying violates the human rights of learners as outlined in the Constitution of South Africa. Bullying is a phenomenon that is destructive in nature and brings out the culture of violence in learning environment. Cyberbullying is a complex social issue and has close association with mental health illness/problems. It has consequence which includes, trauma, drop in school performance, school dropout and suicide. Cyberbullying is not a new concept among social workers because of their involvement with the phenomenon daily. Cyberbullying involves the use of social media, technology and texts to inflict harm on the victims. The study adopted the qualitative research approach, and this approach was used to provide the knowledge about the destructive nature of cyberbullying on learners in schools. The primary goal of this study was to develop an in-depth knowledge on the destruction or learners in schools. Face-to-face, semi-structured interviews was used in the study with the adoption of purposive technique of sampling. The Interview guide was utilized as a data collection instrument exploratory research designs was employed. The researcher obtained permission from the participants prior to data collection and sought permission for the audio-recording of the participants. The study applied the thematic content as a method of data analysis. The study employed two theoretical framework which were ecological approach and the strength-based approach. The study found that emotional, psychological and educational effects are some of the destructive effects of bullying which puts too much pressure on learners.
The rapid advancement of technology has changed the world's civilization rapidly and provided many benefits to humans in various activities. Every individual, from children to adults will adapt to technology because daily life is very interchangeable to the use of technology, especially the internet to access social media, watch movies to find the latest news that spreads quickly. This study aims to identify the influence of Empathy, Self-Control and Parenting Style on adolescent Cyberbullying Behavior on Instagram social media. This study uses a quantitative method with a sampling technique, namely purposive sampling involving as many as 104 adolescent Instagram users as respondents. The instrument in this study is in the form of a questionnaire that is distributed through Google Form. The data of this study was tested using SPSS (Statistical Product and Service Solutions) software. The results of this study show that Empathy has a positive and significant influence on Cyberbullying behavior.Self-Control has a negative but not significant influence on Cyberbullying behavior. Parenting has a positive but also insignificant influence on Cyberbullying behavior. The results of this study indicate that the empathy factor is more dominant in influencing adolescent cyberbullying behavior when compared to self-control and parenting style.
Bullying is the aggression, violence, and threats that are targeted at the victims who are perceived to be weak. Learners living with disabilities are not immune to the phenomenon of bullying. Due to their vulnerability, they are targeted by bullies within the learning environment. Learners living with disabilities are targeted physically, emotionally, and through the use of technology. Learners fear reporting incidents of bullying because of the lack of action and consequences for the perpetrators of bullying. There is a huge increase in bullying incidents at schools against learners living with disabilities because of the inability to report the violence and harassment caused by the perpetrators to the victims of bullying. The learners living with disabilities are being taken advantage of by the perpetrators because of the fear of reporting violent behaviour to the teachers at school. The study applied the qualitative research method to explain the fears and inability to report bullying incidents by learners living with disabilities. Snowball sampling was used to select the study population within different schools, with a sample of about 11 learners considered. An exploratory research design was adopted in this study to explore the challenges experienced by the victims of bullying with regard to the fears of reporting bullying incidents. The study has adopted the interview as an instrument for collecting data. Thematic analysis was used to analyze the information collected from the learners living with disabilities. The study has observed the ethical considerations to ensure respect for the rights of the participants and universal observations for studies that involve human beings.
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 |