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 07:23 UTC — 22 Oct 2026 01:28 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 | 2 | 2 | 2/2 | 2/2 |
| 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 | 0 | 0 | 0/0 | 0/0 |
| 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 | 2 | 2 | 2/2 | 2/2 |
| 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 | — | 0 | 0/0 | 0/0 |
| 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 | 8 | 2 | 2/2 | 2/2 |
| 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 | — | 0 | 0/0 | 0/0 |
| 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 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): 2026-10-21T07:23:04.045447+00:00 — 2026-10-22T01:28:51.656860+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 | 1 | 3 | 3/3 |
| 2022 | All selected publications | 2 | 3 | 3/3 |
| 2023 | All selected publications | 1 | 3 | 3/3 |
| 2024 | All selected publications | 2 | 3 | 3/3 |
| 2025 | All selected publications | 1 | 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 |
|---|---|
| 2020 | 2 |
| 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 | 8 | 3/3 | 0.67 | 1 | 66.7 | 3/3 · 100.0% |
* Percentage among publications with a known citation count.
Benefactor organizations have greatly funded livelihood projects and programs in Kilifi County. However, these projects grapple with sustainability. Some halt operations instantaneously the funding is withdrawn. The purpose of the study was to investigate the influence of monitoring and evaluation (participation; tools; and timing and frequency) on the sustainability of donor-funded livelihood projects in Kilifi County, Kenya. The descriptive correlational research design was used with a sample of 170 from a population of 295 from three livelihood projects. Seven interviews and three focus group discussions were carried out. Standard deviations, standard error of means, arithmetic means, Pearson’s Product moment correlation, and linear regression were used. The perception of sustainability did not differ significantly with projects, gender, age, and marital status. However, perception differed based on the highest level of education and duration in the project. H0, r=0.458, p=0.000389<0.05 was rejected and concluded that monitoring and evaluation significantly influenced the sustainability of donor-funded livelihood projects. Participation in M&E and (p=0.000), frequency, and timing (p=0.024) had a significant while tools used in M&E (p=0.459) did have a significant influence on sustainability. This implies that corporate and individual knowledge of the project objectives, targets, and means of measuring project results were still critical in ensuring sustainability is attained. Simple templates of the logical framework should be used for the farmers to understand how inputs are converted into activities, outputs, outcomes, and goals. It is implied that the farmers had little knowledge of Likert items denoting tools in M&E. Therefore, simple and direct Likert items need to be chosen.
The results of an evaluation should be used for the envisioned goal and the evaluation process and/or outcomes should be used in practice and decision making. This article presents research whose objective was to establish the extent to which stakeholder involvement in evaluations impacts the utilization of evaluation findings for program improvement. Guided by the pragmatic paradigm and supported by the Utilization-Focused Evaluation Model and Knowledge Use Theory, the researchers assumed a descriptive and correlational design using mixed methods. The sample size for this study was 232 project staff from Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) in Kisumu Central Sub-County, Kenya. To analyze qualitative data, the open-ended responses from key informant interviews were recorded and coded appropriately for further analysis for themes through content analysis and comparative analysis. Frequencies and percentages were calculated to describe the basic characteristics of the quantitative data. To ensure the validity and reliability of the research instruments, pilot testing was conducted. Cronbach’s alpha at ? = 0.908 was attained as the reliability coefficient of the pre-test instruments. Tests of statistical assumptions were carried out before data analysis to avoid invalidation. A hypothesis was tested at the ? = .05 level of significance and was rejected. The findings demonstrate that there is a significant relationship between stakeholder involvement in evaluations and the utilization of evaluation results. This research, therefore, reinforces literature and helps to understand the ways in which stakeholder involvement in evaluations influences the utilization of evaluation results. It informs the evaluation field of study, fills gaps in the evaluation use literature, and contributes to the appreciation of factors that predict and enhance the utilization of evaluation results
Evaluation systems are slowly making inroads in South African municipalities, particularly in the metros, yet their effective utilisation remains uneven across service delivery programmes. This study investigates the barriers affecting the uptake of evaluation in implementing the Indigent Programme Exit Strategy within the City of Tshwane (CoT) Metropolitan Municipality. Despite the strategic intent of the exit strategy to reduce long-term dependency and promote self-sufficiency among beneficiaries, the study finds that evaluation evidence is rarely used to inform decisions related to the strategy's design, implementation, or review. Instead, reliance is placed on administrative reporting and compliance-driven monitoring data, which limits learning, adaptation, and accountability. Using a qualitative case study approach grounded in institutional and systems theory, the study draws on semi-structured interviews and document analysis to identify key barriers, including weak political incentives for evaluation use, limited integration of evaluation processes into decision-making cycles, and inadequate feedback loops between evaluators, implementers, and policymakers. The findings underscore that the challenge is not the absence of M&E systems but rather the underutilisation of evaluation evidence to inform programmatic change. The article concludes by offering context-sensitive recommendations for enhancing evaluation uptake within municipal exit strategies and related interventions, contributing broader lessons for strengthening evidence use in local governance.
Evaluation systems are slowly making inroads in South African municipalities, particularly in the metros, yet their effective utilisation remains uneven across service delivery programmes. This study investigates the barriers affecting the uptake of evaluation in implementing the Indigent Programme Exit Strategy within the City of Tshwane (CoT) Metropolitan Municipality. Despite the strategic intent of the exit strategy to reduce long-term dependency and promote self-sufficiency among beneficiaries, the study finds that evaluation evidence is rarely used to inform decisions related to the strategy's design, implementation, or review. Instead, reliance is placed on administrative reporting and compliance-driven monitoring data, which limits learning, adaptation, and accountability. Using a qualitative case study approach grounded in institutional and systems theory, the study draws on semi-structured interviews and document analysis to identify key barriers, including weak political incentives for evaluation use, limited integration of evaluation processes into decision-making cycles, and inadequate feedback loops between evaluators, implementers, and policymakers. The findings underscore that the challenge is not the absence of M&E systems but rather the underutilisation of evaluation evidence to inform programmatic change. The article concludes by offering context-sensitive recommendations for enhancing evaluation uptake within municipal exit strategies and related interventions, contributing broader lessons for strengthening evidence use in local governance.
Benefactor organizations have greatly funded livelihood projects and programs in Kilifi County. However, these projects grapple with sustainability. Some halt operations instantaneously the funding is withdrawn. The purpose of the study was to investigate the influence of monitoring and evaluation (participation; tools; and timing and frequency) on the sustainability of donor-funded livelihood projects in Kilifi County, Kenya. The descriptive correlational research design was used with a sample of 170 from a population of 295 from three livelihood projects. Seven interviews and three focus group discussions were carried out. Standard deviations, standard error of means, arithmetic means, Pearson’s Product moment correlation, and linear regression were used. The perception of sustainability did not differ significantly with projects, gender, age, and marital status. However, perception differed based on the highest level of education and duration in the project. H0, r=0.458, p=0.000389<0.05 was rejected and concluded that monitoring and evaluation significantly influenced the sustainability of donor-funded livelihood projects. Participation in M&E and (p=0.000), frequency, and timing (p=0.024) had a significant while tools used in M&E (p=0.459) did have a significant influence on sustainability. This implies that corporate and individual knowledge of the project objectives, targets, and means of measuring project results were still critical in ensuring sustainability is attained. Simple templates of the logical framework should be used for the farmers to understand how inputs are converted into activities, outputs, outcomes, and goals. It is implied that the farmers had little knowledge of Likert items denoting tools in M&E. Therefore, simple and direct Likert items need to be chosen.
The results of an evaluation should be used for the envisioned goal and the evaluation process and/or outcomes should be used in practice and decision making. This article presents research whose objective was to establish the extent to which stakeholder involvement in evaluations impacts the utilization of evaluation findings for program improvement. Guided by the pragmatic paradigm and supported by the Utilization-Focused Evaluation Model and Knowledge Use Theory, the researchers assumed a descriptive and correlational design using mixed methods. The sample size for this study was 232 project staff from Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) in Kisumu Central Sub-County, Kenya. To analyze qualitative data, the open-ended responses from key informant interviews were recorded and coded appropriately for further analysis for themes through content analysis and comparative analysis. Frequencies and percentages were calculated to describe the basic characteristics of the quantitative data. To ensure the validity and reliability of the research instruments, pilot testing was conducted. Cronbach’s alpha at ? = 0.908 was attained as the reliability coefficient of the pre-test instruments. Tests of statistical assumptions were carried out before data analysis to avoid invalidation. A hypothesis was tested at the ? = .05 level of significance and was rejected. The findings demonstrate that there is a significant relationship between stakeholder involvement in evaluations and the utilization of evaluation results. This research, therefore, reinforces literature and helps to understand the ways in which stakeholder involvement in evaluations influences the utilization of evaluation results. It informs the evaluation field of study, fills gaps in the evaluation use literature, and contributes to the appreciation of factors that predict and enhance the utilization of evaluation results
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 |