CiteNScope — Scholarly Index & Analytics
Discover / Analytics RESEARCH INTELLIGENCE
CiteNScope / Analytics

Explore the evidence.
Understand the reach.

Research across participating journals · All insights follow your collection filters.

Compare journals ↗
OpenAlex coverage 100.0% · 3/3 recordsLast OpenAlex observation 21 Oct 2026, 07:23 UTC
PUBLICATIONS3In the selected collection
CROSSREF CITATIONS23/3 with known counts
OPENALEX CITATIONS33/3 with known counts
OPENALEX MEAN1.0Per article with a known count
Explore articles 3 →
Filter collection Publication years, search & more
Reset
topic: Innovative Teaching Methods Remove ×
Your research collection

Output and reach

Publication activity alongside incoming citations.

Publication activity

Articles grouped by publication year

Publications

Hover over a year or focus the chart and use arrow keys to inspect values.

2026 is year to date. 0 undated publications excluded.

View data & coverage

Citations received

OpenAlex · year of the citing work

OpenAlex

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.

View data & coverage

Research landscape

Leading affiliations and themes in this collection.

Full distributions & methodology ↓

Institutions

University of Zululand1National University Bangladesh1Sefako Makgatho Health Sciences University13/3 records with data

Countries

South Africa2Bangladesh13/3 records with data

Primary topics

Innovative Teaching Methods33/3 records with data
Two perspectives on citations

Follow the research impact

Independent sources. Clear time scales.

Lifetime citations by publication year

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.

View data & coverage

Citations received each year

OpenAlex · incoming citation links grouped by citing-work year

OpenAlex

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.

View data & coverage
Annual history: 3/3 articles. Latest history observation: 2026-10-21T07:23:02.622909+00:00. Source totals are never added together.
Research side by side

Compare journals

Compare across all journals →

Select journals to compare the same collection filters. Source totals stay separate. These measures describe research activity, not journal quality.

Leave all unchecked to include every matching journal. Selection affects only comparison charts.
Display range
International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science

Publications

Articles by publication year

View data & coverage

Crossref citations

Latest lifetime totals · grouped by publication year

View data & coverage

OpenAlex citations

Latest lifetime totals · grouped by publication year

View data & coverage

OpenAlex · Citations received

By year of the citing work · 2017–2026

View data & coverage

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.

Full analytics report All distributions, publications, comparisons & data provenance
3 MATCHING PUBLICATIONSExplore results →Export CSV ↓
INDEXED PUBLICATIONS3
CROSSREF CITATIONS2
CROSSREF · CITED PUBLICATIONS66.7%
CROSSREF · MEAN CITATIONS0.67

Crossref citation coverage: 3 / 3 publications (100.0%). Latest observation: 21 Oct 2026, 07:22 UTC. Means and percentages use records with known counts.

OpenAlex / Separate citation source

A broader view of this research

DOI-matched OpenAlex observations for the same selected publications. These counts are separate from Crossref and are never added together.

OPENALEX CITATIONS3
DOI MATCH COVERAGE100.0%3 / 3 publications
MEAN · KNOWN COUNTS ONLY1.03 known · 0 unknown
MEDIAN · KNOWN COUNTS ONLY1

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 citation distributionNo citations01–536–20021+0Unknown0

Institutions, countries & topics

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.

Institutions

3 / 3 with data · 0 missing or unmatched. Percentages use all 3 selected publications.

Countries

3 / 3 with data · 0 missing or unmatched. Percentages use all 3 selected publications.

Primary topics

3 / 3 with data · 0 missing or unmatched. Percentages use all 3 selected publications.

Citation year / OpenAlex

Citations received over time

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.

OpenAlex · Citations received by year

21.00 2017 · All selected publications · OpenAlex · Citations received by year: 0 · Annual history coverage 3/32018 · All selected publications · OpenAlex · Citations received by year: 0 · Annual history coverage 3/32019 · All selected publications · OpenAlex · Citations received by year: 0 · Annual history coverage 3/32020 · All selected publications · OpenAlex · Citations received by year: 0 · Annual history coverage 3/32021 · All selected publications · OpenAlex · Citations received by year: 0 · Annual history coverage 3/32022 · All selected publications · OpenAlex · Citations received by year: 1 · Annual history coverage 3/32023 · All selected publications · OpenAlex · Citations received by year: 0 · Annual history coverage 3/32024 · All selected publications · OpenAlex · Citations received by year: 0 · Annual history coverage 3/32025 · All selected publications · OpenAlex · Citations received by year: 2 · Annual history coverage 3/32026 · All selected publications · OpenAlex · Citations received by year: 0 · Annual history coverage 3/3 2017201820192020202120222023202420252026
View openalex · citations received by year data & coverage
Citation yearJournal / scopeOpenAlex · Citations received by yearPublicationsAnnual history known
2017All selected publications033/3
2018All selected publications033/3
2019All selected publications033/3
2020All selected publications033/3
2021All selected publications033/3
2022All selected publications133/3
2023All selected publications033/3
2024All selected publications033/3
2025All selected publications233/3
2026All selected publications033/3

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 ↗

Crossref citation distribution

Latest Crossref totals for the selected publications; not citations received in the selected years.

Mean0.67
Median1
No citations11–526–20021+0Unknown0

Unknown counts are excluded from the mean, median and cited-publication rate.

Journal comparison

Same filters, source and counting rules across journals. Descriptive statistics, not a quality ranking.

Journal / publisherPublicationsCrossref citationsOpenAlex citationsOpenAlex coverageCrossref meanCrossref medianCrossref cited %*Crossref coverage
International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science
SSBFNET
3233/30.67166.73/3 · 100.0%

* Percentage among publications with a known citation count.

Explore publications

View all 3 →

Most cited · Crossref

JOURNAL ARTICLE

Optimising multimodal learning in higher education: a case study of a selected South African institution

Tshiamo Kgaphola · Mamelang Molaba · Solly Matshonisa Seeletse

International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science · 2024

Read abstract

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.

DOI 10.20525/ijrbs.v13i2.31951 Crossref citations1 OpenAlex citations
JOURNAL ARTICLE

A critical approach to active learning

Muhammad Jakir Al Faruki

International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science · 2020

Read abstract

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

DOI 10.20525/ijrbs.v9i3.6701 Crossref citations1 OpenAlex citations
JOURNAL ARTICLE

A comparative analysis of interactive tools in higher education’s teaching and learning: The strengths and weaknesses of Mentimeter, Google forms, Socrative, and Kahoot for playful learning

Ayansola Ayandibu

International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science · 2025

Read abstract

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.

DOI 10.20525/ijrbs.v14i5.38210 Crossref citations1 OpenAlex citations

Selected results

JOURNAL ARTICLE

A comparative analysis of interactive tools in higher education’s teaching and learning: The strengths and weaknesses of Mentimeter, Google forms, Socrative, and Kahoot for playful learning

Ayansola Ayandibu

International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science · 2025

Read abstract

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.

DOI 10.20525/ijrbs.v14i5.38210 Crossref citations1 OpenAlex citations
JOURNAL ARTICLE

Optimising multimodal learning in higher education: a case study of a selected South African institution

Tshiamo Kgaphola · Mamelang Molaba · Solly Matshonisa Seeletse

International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science · 2024

Read abstract

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.

DOI 10.20525/ijrbs.v13i2.31951 Crossref citations1 OpenAlex citations
JOURNAL ARTICLE

A critical approach to active learning

Muhammad Jakir Al Faruki

International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science · 2020

Read abstract

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

DOI 10.20525/ijrbs.v9i3.6701 Crossref citations1 OpenAlex citations

Data coverage & freshness

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

SourceMost recent successful journal syncLatest attempt
crossref21 Oct 2026 07:22 UTC · ijrbscomplete · ijrbs · 21 Oct 2026 07:22 UTC
ojs-rest21 Oct 2026 07:22 UTC · ijrbscomplete · ijrbs · 21 Oct 2026 06:46 UTC
oai-pmh20 Oct 2026 19:55 UTC · ijrbscomplete · ijrbs · 20 Oct 2026 19:50 UTC
openalex-enrichment21 Oct 2026 07:23 UTC · ijrbscomplete · ijrbs · 21 Oct 2026 07:22 UTC
Full import history & methodology →