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 07:22 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.
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 | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | All selected publications | 2 | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | All selected publications | 2 | 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 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): 2026-10-21T07:22:59.980467+00:00 — 2026-10-21T07:23:09.624987+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 | 2 | 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 Research in Business and Social Science SSBFNET | 3 | 2 | 2 | 3/3 | 0.67 | 1 | 66.7 | 3/3 · 100.0% |
* Percentage among publications with a known citation count.
Although the growing use of generative artificial intelligence (GAI) in higher education research offers exciting potential for enhancing innovation and efficiency, it is also troubled by significant ethical challenges. This review systematically explores critical concerns that border on risks that are associated with data privacy, algorithmic bias, transparency deficiencies, accountability gaps, and threats to academic integrity. This was done by providing a literature-based assessment of why the use GAI in higher education continues to be problematic. This assessment yielded informative insights that were deciphered from 31 papers which were systematically selected from a sampling universe of 119 publications. Findings highlight the necessity of striking a balance between embracing AI-driven advancements and upholding ethical standards in research, in a manner that does not compromise human capacities to mitigate the unexpected eventualities and their consequences. A set of actionable guidelines that are designed to enhance the responsible integration of GAI in higher education without side-lining the importance of observing critical ethical issues that must be considered and adhered to in academic research is given. These guidelines are useful because they form the foundation of a robust framework which gui, Generative, Higher Education, Researchdes the way GAI is used in higher education research without forgetting that this technology is not an all-round paragon.
This paper critically examined the impact of over-dependence on Artificial Intelligence (AI) by Information Technology (IT) Professionals, exploring the impact on cognitive functions such as critical thinking, decision-making, and problem-solving, and how these affect the autonomy of IT Professionals. Using quantitative research methodology, the study surveyed 180 IT Professionals to gauge their usage of and dependence on AI-powered tools, as well as their perceptions about AI technologies and the effects these might have on their cognitive abilities. The findings showed a very significant integration of AI by the respondents in both their personal and professional capacities, as well as a substantial dependence on AI-powered tools, particularly for decision-making purposes. Furthermore, there appeared to be a possible underestimation of the effects that AI usage has on cognitive abilities, as expressed through the paradoxical survey results. Moreover, several ethical issues were identified such as bias, privacy and the lagging behind of laws and regulations, further serving to complicate the effects of over-dependence on AI. Based on its findings this paper makes recommendations for the development of clear guidelines for the use of AI, continuous learning and development programs, focusing on AI advancements and risks, as well as the implementation of frequent impact and security assessments. These recommendations aim to assist organisations and IT Professionals to benefit from the advantages of AI while maintaining critical skills, human oversight and intuition.
Artificial intelligence (AI) is fundamentally transforming accounting practice by displacing traditional data-processing tasks, augmenting auditing functions, and reshaping the professional competency requirements of financial reporting. While these technological developments generate substantial efficiency gains, they simultaneously introduce unprecedented ethical challenges, including algorithmic opacity, accountability diffusion, bias propagation in automated judgment, and the erosion of professional scepticism — that threaten the integrity of financial reporting and the public trust upon which the accounting profession's social licence to operate ultimately depends. This paper develops a rigorous, theoretically grounded analysis of the intersection between artificial intelligence and accounting ethics, drawing on institutional theory, agency theory, virtue ethics, and the stakeholder trust framework to diagnose how AI adoption reconfigures the ethical architecture of financial reporting and to prescribe the governance, professional, and regulatory responses required to safeguard ethical standards and trust in this transformed environment. The paper makes three original contributions: first, it develops a multi-dimensional taxonomy of AI-related ethical risks in accounting, distinguishing technical, professional, and systemic risk categories; second, it proposes the Ethical AI Accounting Governance Framework (EAAGF), an original implementation model that integrates algorithmic governance, professional ethics renewal, regulatory adaptation, and stakeholder assurance mechanisms; and third, it situates these contributions within a comparative empirical analysis of AI adoption experiences across major accounting contexts, integrating evidence from surveys, regulatory reports, and case illustrations. The paper argues that the central challenge is not whether AI will transform accounting — this is already occurring — but whether the profession, regulators, and organisations can collectively construct the ethical governance infrastructure required to ensure that transformation advances rather than undermines the accountability, transparency, and trust that constitute the profession's foundational social purpose.
Artificial intelligence (AI) is fundamentally transforming accounting practice by displacing traditional data-processing tasks, augmenting auditing functions, and reshaping the professional competency requirements of financial reporting. While these technological developments generate substantial efficiency gains, they simultaneously introduce unprecedented ethical challenges, including algorithmic opacity, accountability diffusion, bias propagation in automated judgment, and the erosion of professional scepticism — that threaten the integrity of financial reporting and the public trust upon which the accounting profession's social licence to operate ultimately depends. This paper develops a rigorous, theoretically grounded analysis of the intersection between artificial intelligence and accounting ethics, drawing on institutional theory, agency theory, virtue ethics, and the stakeholder trust framework to diagnose how AI adoption reconfigures the ethical architecture of financial reporting and to prescribe the governance, professional, and regulatory responses required to safeguard ethical standards and trust in this transformed environment. The paper makes three original contributions: first, it develops a multi-dimensional taxonomy of AI-related ethical risks in accounting, distinguishing technical, professional, and systemic risk categories; second, it proposes the Ethical AI Accounting Governance Framework (EAAGF), an original implementation model that integrates algorithmic governance, professional ethics renewal, regulatory adaptation, and stakeholder assurance mechanisms; and third, it situates these contributions within a comparative empirical analysis of AI adoption experiences across major accounting contexts, integrating evidence from surveys, regulatory reports, and case illustrations. The paper argues that the central challenge is not whether AI will transform accounting — this is already occurring — but whether the profession, regulators, and organisations can collectively construct the ethical governance infrastructure required to ensure that transformation advances rather than undermines the accountability, transparency, and trust that constitute the profession's foundational social purpose.
Although the growing use of generative artificial intelligence (GAI) in higher education research offers exciting potential for enhancing innovation and efficiency, it is also troubled by significant ethical challenges. This review systematically explores critical concerns that border on risks that are associated with data privacy, algorithmic bias, transparency deficiencies, accountability gaps, and threats to academic integrity. This was done by providing a literature-based assessment of why the use GAI in higher education continues to be problematic. This assessment yielded informative insights that were deciphered from 31 papers which were systematically selected from a sampling universe of 119 publications. Findings highlight the necessity of striking a balance between embracing AI-driven advancements and upholding ethical standards in research, in a manner that does not compromise human capacities to mitigate the unexpected eventualities and their consequences. A set of actionable guidelines that are designed to enhance the responsible integration of GAI in higher education without side-lining the importance of observing critical ethical issues that must be considered and adhered to in academic research is given. These guidelines are useful because they form the foundation of a robust framework which gui, Generative, Higher Education, Researchdes the way GAI is used in higher education research without forgetting that this technology is not an all-round paragon.
This paper critically examined the impact of over-dependence on Artificial Intelligence (AI) by Information Technology (IT) Professionals, exploring the impact on cognitive functions such as critical thinking, decision-making, and problem-solving, and how these affect the autonomy of IT Professionals. Using quantitative research methodology, the study surveyed 180 IT Professionals to gauge their usage of and dependence on AI-powered tools, as well as their perceptions about AI technologies and the effects these might have on their cognitive abilities. The findings showed a very significant integration of AI by the respondents in both their personal and professional capacities, as well as a substantial dependence on AI-powered tools, particularly for decision-making purposes. Furthermore, there appeared to be a possible underestimation of the effects that AI usage has on cognitive abilities, as expressed through the paradoxical survey results. Moreover, several ethical issues were identified such as bias, privacy and the lagging behind of laws and regulations, further serving to complicate the effects of over-dependence on AI. Based on its findings this paper makes recommendations for the development of clear guidelines for the use of AI, continuous learning and development programs, focusing on AI advancements and risks, as well as the implementation of frequent impact and security assessments. These recommendations aim to assist organisations and IT Professionals to benefit from the advantages of AI while maintaining critical skills, human oversight and intuition.
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 |