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 07:23 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.
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 | 0 | 0 | 0/0 | 0/0 |
| 2022 | All selected publications | 0 | 0 | 0/0 | 0/0 |
| 2023 | All selected publications | 0 | 0 | 0/0 | 0/0 |
| 2024 | All selected publications | 1 | 1 | 1/1 | 1/1 |
| 2025 | All selected publications | 1 | 1 | 1/1 | 1/1 |
| Publication year | Journal / scope | Crossref citations | Publications | Crossref known | OpenAlex known |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2020 | All selected publications | 1 | 1 | 1/1 | 1/1 |
| 2021 | All selected publications | — | 0 | 0/0 | 0/0 |
| 2022 | All selected publications | — | 0 | 0/0 | 0/0 |
| 2023 | All selected publications | — | 0 | 0/0 | 0/0 |
| 2024 | All selected publications | 1 | 1 | 1/1 | 1/1 |
| 2025 | All selected publications | 0 | 1 | 1/1 | 1/1 |
| Publication year | Journal / scope | OpenAlex citations | Publications | Crossref known | OpenAlex known |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2020 | All selected publications | 1 | 1 | 1/1 | 1/1 |
| 2021 | All selected publications | — | 0 | 0/0 | 0/0 |
| 2022 | All selected publications | — | 0 | 0/0 | 0/0 |
| 2023 | All selected publications | — | 0 | 0/0 | 0/0 |
| 2024 | All selected publications | 1 | 1 | 1/1 | 1/1 |
| 2025 | 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): 2026-10-21T00:49:32.556826+00:00 — 2026-10-21T07:23:02.622909+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 | 1 | 3 | 3/3 |
| 2023 | All selected publications | 0 | 3 | 3/3 |
| 2024 | All selected publications | 0 | 3 | 3/3 |
| 2025 | All selected publications | 2 | 3 | 3/3 |
| 2026 | All selected publications | 0 | 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 |
|---|---|
| 2020 | 1 |
| 2024 | 1 |
| 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 Research in Business and Social Science SSBFNET | 3 | 2 | 3 | 3/3 | 0.67 | 1 | 66.7 | 3/3 · 100.0% |
* Percentage among publications with a known citation count.
The study investigated the shortages in a multimodal learning (MML) approach that was used in a science faculty of a selected higher education institution (HEI) in South Africa. The study population consisted of students of the science faculty. The sample consisted of students who willingly offered to participate after being informed of this study. A study questionnaire consisting of MML components was used to collect data. It was distributed by email as Google forms to students who had supplied their email addresses in acceptance of participating. Analysis of data consisted of graphs and measures in percentages to determine the level of how the students experienced the various MML components. The deficiency level was not too high, but the components that were missing were crucial to effect beneficial learning. The components missing in MML were found to be core components of a flipped classroom (FC). The paper recommended a move of MML closer to FC.
This micro-level study conducted on tow Bangladeshi colleges intended to explore how far learners have engaged actively in the process of learning and teaching. This article (1) examines the nature and character of active learning and (2) elucidates the present approach of learning in practice in the higher education of Bangladesh at the college level affiliated with National University, Bangladesh. The investigation completed by applying the mixture of qualitative and quantitative approaches, though it is primarily focused on qualitative analysis. Data collected based on two cases. In addition, four FGD sessions have arranged with teachers and students and two of them with the teacher and rest two with the students. In this case study, we come across that student-teacher engagement in learning is very low. There are few scopes for reaching students' behavior, motivation levels in the learning situation. Absenteeism is very high in the students as well as in the teacher. Both the learners and instructors involved in learning for a short period of time. Their staying in the institution for short is a barrier to a high level of engagement in teaching-learning. As a consequence, they do not become the anytime, anywhere learner thereby not lifelong learners
This study presents a comprehensive comparative analysis of four popular educational technology tools Mentimeter, Google Forms, Socrative, and Kahoot within the context of higher education. The aim is to critically evaluate their respective strengths and weaknesses, focusing on their utility, functionality, and effectiveness in enhancing the learning experience and engagement among college and university students. Mentimeter is a dynamic presentation tool allowing real-time audience engagement through live polls, quizzes, and interactive presentations. Its strengths lie in its user-friendly interface, diverse question types, and real-time feedback capabilities, fostering active participation and knowledge retention. However, limitations include its potential dependency on stable internet connectivity and limited complex assessment features. Google Forms, a versatile survey tool integrated with the Google ecosystem, offers flexibility in creating surveys, quizzes, and assessments. Its strengths include ease of use, data management through Google Sheets, and customizable question formats. However, while suitable for basic assessments, it may lack some advanced features required for complex evaluations and interactive learning. Socrative provides a platform for formative assessment, enabling teachers to create quizzes, assessments, and exit tickets. Its strengths lie in its instant grading, diverse question types, and the ability to track individual student progress. However, its interface might be less intuitive for some users, and its interactive features may be limited compared to other tools. Kahoot is a game-based learning platform that gamifies quizzes and assessments, promoting engagement and motivation among students. Its strengths include its gamified approach, competitive atmosphere, and ease of use. However, its design might favor rote memorization over deeper learning, and it may not be suitable for all types of educational content or assessment formats. This comparative analysis highlights the distinct advantages and limitations of each tool, offering insights for educators and institutions seeking to leverage technology for effective teaching and learning strategies in higher education. Understanding these strengths and weaknesses can aid educators in making informed decisions about selecting and integrating appropriate educational technologies to enhance student engagement, participation, and learning outcomes. Further research and practical implementations can delve deeper into optimizing the use of these tools to cater to diverse educational needs and contexts in higher education.
This study presents a comprehensive comparative analysis of four popular educational technology tools Mentimeter, Google Forms, Socrative, and Kahoot within the context of higher education. The aim is to critically evaluate their respective strengths and weaknesses, focusing on their utility, functionality, and effectiveness in enhancing the learning experience and engagement among college and university students. Mentimeter is a dynamic presentation tool allowing real-time audience engagement through live polls, quizzes, and interactive presentations. Its strengths lie in its user-friendly interface, diverse question types, and real-time feedback capabilities, fostering active participation and knowledge retention. However, limitations include its potential dependency on stable internet connectivity and limited complex assessment features. Google Forms, a versatile survey tool integrated with the Google ecosystem, offers flexibility in creating surveys, quizzes, and assessments. Its strengths include ease of use, data management through Google Sheets, and customizable question formats. However, while suitable for basic assessments, it may lack some advanced features required for complex evaluations and interactive learning. Socrative provides a platform for formative assessment, enabling teachers to create quizzes, assessments, and exit tickets. Its strengths lie in its instant grading, diverse question types, and the ability to track individual student progress. However, its interface might be less intuitive for some users, and its interactive features may be limited compared to other tools. Kahoot is a game-based learning platform that gamifies quizzes and assessments, promoting engagement and motivation among students. Its strengths include its gamified approach, competitive atmosphere, and ease of use. However, its design might favor rote memorization over deeper learning, and it may not be suitable for all types of educational content or assessment formats. This comparative analysis highlights the distinct advantages and limitations of each tool, offering insights for educators and institutions seeking to leverage technology for effective teaching and learning strategies in higher education. Understanding these strengths and weaknesses can aid educators in making informed decisions about selecting and integrating appropriate educational technologies to enhance student engagement, participation, and learning outcomes. Further research and practical implementations can delve deeper into optimizing the use of these tools to cater to diverse educational needs and contexts in higher education.
The study investigated the shortages in a multimodal learning (MML) approach that was used in a science faculty of a selected higher education institution (HEI) in South Africa. The study population consisted of students of the science faculty. The sample consisted of students who willingly offered to participate after being informed of this study. A study questionnaire consisting of MML components was used to collect data. It was distributed by email as Google forms to students who had supplied their email addresses in acceptance of participating. Analysis of data consisted of graphs and measures in percentages to determine the level of how the students experienced the various MML components. The deficiency level was not too high, but the components that were missing were crucial to effect beneficial learning. The components missing in MML were found to be core components of a flipped classroom (FC). The paper recommended a move of MML closer to FC.
This micro-level study conducted on tow Bangladeshi colleges intended to explore how far learners have engaged actively in the process of learning and teaching. This article (1) examines the nature and character of active learning and (2) elucidates the present approach of learning in practice in the higher education of Bangladesh at the college level affiliated with National University, Bangladesh. The investigation completed by applying the mixture of qualitative and quantitative approaches, though it is primarily focused on qualitative analysis. Data collected based on two cases. In addition, four FGD sessions have arranged with teachers and students and two of them with the teacher and rest two with the students. In this case study, we come across that student-teacher engagement in learning is very low. There are few scopes for reaching students' behavior, motivation levels in the learning situation. Absenteeism is very high in the students as well as in the teacher. Both the learners and instructors involved in learning for a short period of time. Their staying in the institution for short is a barrier to a high level of engagement in teaching-learning. As a consequence, they do not become the anytime, anywhere learner thereby not lifelong learners
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 |