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 / 3 publications (33.3%). Latest observation: 21 Oct 2026, 00:21 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: 22 Oct 2026 01:12 UTC — 22 Oct 2026 01:37 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.
2 / 3 with data · 1 missing or unmatched. Percentages use all 3 selected publications.
2 / 3 with data · 1 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | All selected publications | 2 | 2 | 1/2 | 2/2 |
| 2026 | All selected publications | 1 | 1 | 0/1 | 1/1 |
| Publication year | Journal / scope | Crossref citations | Publications | Crossref known | OpenAlex known |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | All selected publications | 1 | 2 | 1/2 | 2/2 |
| 2026 | All selected publications | — | 1 | 0/1 | 1/1 |
| Publication year | Journal / scope | OpenAlex citations | Publications | Crossref known | OpenAlex known |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | All selected publications | 1 | 2 | 1/2 | 2/2 |
| 2026 | All selected publications | 0 | 1 | 0/1 | 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): 2026-10-22T01:12:52.242403+00:00 — 2026-10-22T01:37:11.618900+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 | 0 | 3 | 3/3 |
| 2023 | All selected publications | 0 | 3 | 3/3 |
| 2024 | All selected publications | 0 | 3 | 3/3 |
| 2025 | All selected publications | 0 | 3 | 3/3 |
| 2026 | All selected publications | 1 | 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 ↗
Publications by publication year. 2026 is an incomplete year.
| Period | Publications |
|---|---|
| 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 Finance & Banking Studies SSBFNET | 3 | 1 | 1 | 3/3 | 1.0 | 1 | 100.0 | 1/3 · 33.3% |
* Percentage among publications with a known citation count.
Effective implementation of education projects is crucial for sustainable development, yet many initiatives in developing regions like Musanze District, Rwanda, face challenges due to inadequate monitoring and evaluation (M&E) practices. This study had the following specific objectives; To assess the influence of M&E planning, M&E budget, M&E capacity building and, M&E data utilization on implementation of education projects in Musanze District. The study was grounded on Evidence-Based Practice (EBP) Theory. The study used descriptive survey and correlational research designs. Questionnaires, interviews, and document analysis were used to collect data from a sample of 156 respondents out of a target population of 658, including school head teachers and teachers. The pilot study with 16 respondents who represent 10% of the sample size was used to enhance the validity and reliability of the research. Validity was confirmed through expert evaluation, with index of 0.80 while Reliability established using the split-half technique achieving a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of 0.80, demonstrating the instruments' consistency and appropriateness for data collection. The four hypotheses were tested at the ? = 0.05 level of significance, and the results were as follows: M&E Planning (P = 0.000 < 0.05), M&E Budgeting (P = 0.000 < 0.05), M&E Capacity Building (P = 0.000 < 0.05) and M&E Data Utilization (P=0.000<0.05) does not significantly influence the implementation of education projects were rejected. In conclusion, the study found that all four practices of Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) M&E Planning, M&E Budgeting, M&E Capacity Building, and M&E Data Utilization have a significant influence on the implementation of education projects. The study recommends that to improve education projects in Rwanda, stakeholders should prioritize comprehensive M&E planning processes with clear objectives and stakeholder participation. Transparent budgeting with robust accountability systems, as well as active community engagement throughout project stages, M&E capacity-building initiatives through regular training sessions and workshops, ensure efficient resource utilization with transparent allocation frameworks. The investigation of the long-term effects of Monitoring and Assessment capacity-building on project sustainability should also be followed by further researchers on the regional differences in implementation effectiveness and on the effects of digital tools and data analytics in promoting high-quality practices in M&E for better outcomes.
Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) are fundamental processes that provide administrators, policymakers, and stakeholders with methods for learning from experience and improving implementation through the reallocation of resources. However, the success of these interventions depends heavily on effective project monitoring and evaluation (M&E) practices. This study therefore examined the effect of project monitoring and evaluation practices on the success of the rural school feeding program in Rutsiro District, Rwanda. The specific objectives were to determine the effect of an M&E baseline survey on the success of the rural school feeding program in Rutsiro District; analyze the effect of M&E planning on program success; assess the effect of M&E data management on program success; and evaluate the effect of M&E stakeholder involvement on program success. The study adopted both the Theory of Change and Utilization-Focused Evaluation. It used descriptive and correlational research designs and adopted a census approach involving 103 respondents, including 89 teachers, 10 staff members, two representatives of school feeding committees at the school level, and two SEIs. Data were collected through questionnaires, interviews, and document reviews. A pilot test was conducted with 10 respondents to determine the instrument's ability to produce consistent results over time. Data were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics, including correlation and regression analyses. The findings revealed that all M&E components (baseline survey, planning, data management, and stakeholder involvement) had a strong and significant positive influence on program success. Respondents showed high levels of agreement, indicating that effective M&E practices improve decision-making, resource allocation, accountability, and overall program performance. The study concluded that well-implemented M&E systems are essential for enhancing the effectiveness, sustainability, and impact of rural school feeding programs. Based on these findings, the study recommends strengthening baseline surveys, improving M&E planning frameworks, enhancing data management systems, promoting active stakeholder involvement, and ensuring adequate resource allocation to support long-term program success.
This study investigated the effect of project monitoring and evaluation (M&E) practices on the performance of the Capacity Development for ICT in Education (CADIE) project in Gicumbi District, Rwanda. The study specifically attempted to examine the effect of M&E planning, M&E tools, M&E digitization, and M&E budget on performance of the CADIE project in Gicumbi District, Rwanda. It was guided by the Technology Acceptance Theory, Results-Based Management (RBM) Theory, and Capacity Development Theory. A descriptive research design combining both quantitative and qualitative approaches was employed. The target population consisted of 268 stakeholders, Using Yamane’s formula, a sample of 160 respondents was drawn using stratified and simple random sampling techniques to ensure fair representation. Data was collected through questionnaires, semi-structured interviews, and documentary reviews. Quantitative data were analyzed using SPSS version 23 through descriptive and inferential statistics, while qualitative data were analyzed thematically. Descriptive statistics revealed that respondents generally agreed that M&E practices positively influenced project performance. The regression model showed R = 0.809 and R² = 0.655, indicating that 65.5% of the variation in project performance was explained by M&E planning, M&E tools, M&E digitalization, and M&E budgeting. The study concluded that effective monitoring and evaluation practices were vital for the successful performance of ICT-based education projects. A structured M&E plan provided clear direction, digitalization improved real-time monitoring and reporting, and proper budgeting ensured accountability and efficient resource utilization.
Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) are fundamental processes that provide administrators, policymakers, and stakeholders with methods for learning from experience and improving implementation through the reallocation of resources. However, the success of these interventions depends heavily on effective project monitoring and evaluation (M&E) practices. This study therefore examined the effect of project monitoring and evaluation practices on the success of the rural school feeding program in Rutsiro District, Rwanda. The specific objectives were to determine the effect of an M&E baseline survey on the success of the rural school feeding program in Rutsiro District; analyze the effect of M&E planning on program success; assess the effect of M&E data management on program success; and evaluate the effect of M&E stakeholder involvement on program success. The study adopted both the Theory of Change and Utilization-Focused Evaluation. It used descriptive and correlational research designs and adopted a census approach involving 103 respondents, including 89 teachers, 10 staff members, two representatives of school feeding committees at the school level, and two SEIs. Data were collected through questionnaires, interviews, and document reviews. A pilot test was conducted with 10 respondents to determine the instrument's ability to produce consistent results over time. Data were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics, including correlation and regression analyses. The findings revealed that all M&E components (baseline survey, planning, data management, and stakeholder involvement) had a strong and significant positive influence on program success. Respondents showed high levels of agreement, indicating that effective M&E practices improve decision-making, resource allocation, accountability, and overall program performance. The study concluded that well-implemented M&E systems are essential for enhancing the effectiveness, sustainability, and impact of rural school feeding programs. Based on these findings, the study recommends strengthening baseline surveys, improving M&E planning frameworks, enhancing data management systems, promoting active stakeholder involvement, and ensuring adequate resource allocation to support long-term program success.
This study investigated the effect of project monitoring and evaluation (M&E) practices on the performance of the Capacity Development for ICT in Education (CADIE) project in Gicumbi District, Rwanda. The study specifically attempted to examine the effect of M&E planning, M&E tools, M&E digitization, and M&E budget on performance of the CADIE project in Gicumbi District, Rwanda. It was guided by the Technology Acceptance Theory, Results-Based Management (RBM) Theory, and Capacity Development Theory. A descriptive research design combining both quantitative and qualitative approaches was employed. The target population consisted of 268 stakeholders, Using Yamane’s formula, a sample of 160 respondents was drawn using stratified and simple random sampling techniques to ensure fair representation. Data was collected through questionnaires, semi-structured interviews, and documentary reviews. Quantitative data were analyzed using SPSS version 23 through descriptive and inferential statistics, while qualitative data were analyzed thematically. Descriptive statistics revealed that respondents generally agreed that M&E practices positively influenced project performance. The regression model showed R = 0.809 and R² = 0.655, indicating that 65.5% of the variation in project performance was explained by M&E planning, M&E tools, M&E digitalization, and M&E budgeting. The study concluded that effective monitoring and evaluation practices were vital for the successful performance of ICT-based education projects. A structured M&E plan provided clear direction, digitalization improved real-time monitoring and reporting, and proper budgeting ensured accountability and efficient resource utilization.
Effective implementation of education projects is crucial for sustainable development, yet many initiatives in developing regions like Musanze District, Rwanda, face challenges due to inadequate monitoring and evaluation (M&E) practices. This study had the following specific objectives; To assess the influence of M&E planning, M&E budget, M&E capacity building and, M&E data utilization on implementation of education projects in Musanze District. The study was grounded on Evidence-Based Practice (EBP) Theory. The study used descriptive survey and correlational research designs. Questionnaires, interviews, and document analysis were used to collect data from a sample of 156 respondents out of a target population of 658, including school head teachers and teachers. The pilot study with 16 respondents who represent 10% of the sample size was used to enhance the validity and reliability of the research. Validity was confirmed through expert evaluation, with index of 0.80 while Reliability established using the split-half technique achieving a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of 0.80, demonstrating the instruments' consistency and appropriateness for data collection. The four hypotheses were tested at the ? = 0.05 level of significance, and the results were as follows: M&E Planning (P = 0.000 < 0.05), M&E Budgeting (P = 0.000 < 0.05), M&E Capacity Building (P = 0.000 < 0.05) and M&E Data Utilization (P=0.000<0.05) does not significantly influence the implementation of education projects were rejected. In conclusion, the study found that all four practices of Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) M&E Planning, M&E Budgeting, M&E Capacity Building, and M&E Data Utilization have a significant influence on the implementation of education projects. The study recommends that to improve education projects in Rwanda, stakeholders should prioritize comprehensive M&E planning processes with clear objectives and stakeholder participation. Transparent budgeting with robust accountability systems, as well as active community engagement throughout project stages, M&E capacity-building initiatives through regular training sessions and workshops, ensure efficient resource utilization with transparent allocation frameworks. The investigation of the long-term effects of Monitoring and Assessment capacity-building on project sustainability should also be followed by further researchers on the regional differences in implementation effectiveness and on the effects of digital tools and data analytics in promoting high-quality practices in M&E for better outcomes.
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 00:21 UTC · ijfbs | complete · ijfbs · 21 Oct 2026 00:21 UTC |
| ojs-rest | 21 Oct 2026 00:21 UTC · ijfbs | complete · ijfbs · 21 Oct 2026 00:14 UTC |
| oai-pmh | 20 Oct 2026 19:56 UTC · ijfbs | complete · ijfbs · 20 Oct 2026 19:55 UTC |
| openalex-enrichment | 21 Oct 2026 00:22 UTC · ijfbs | complete · ijfbs · 21 Oct 2026 00:21 UTC |