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 CITATIONS23/3 with known counts
OPENALEX MEAN0.67Per article with a known count
Explore articles 3 →
Filter collection Publication years, search & more
Reset
topic: Ethics and Social Impacts of AI 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

Taif University1University of Venda12/3 records with data

Countries

Saudi Arabia1South Africa12/3 records with data

Primary topics

Ethics and Social Impacts of AI33/3 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: 2026-10-21T07:23:09.624987+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 CITATIONS2
DOI MATCH COVERAGE100.0%3 / 3 publications
MEAN · KNOWN COUNTS ONLY0.673 known · 0 unknown
MEDIAN · KNOWN COUNTS ONLY1

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 citation distributionNo citations11–526–20021+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

2 / 3 with data · 1 missing or unmatched. Percentages use all 3 selected publications.

Countries

2 / 3 with data · 1 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): 2026-10-21T07:22:59.980467+00:00 — 2026-10-21T07:23:09.624987+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: 0 · 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: 0 · Annual history coverage 3/32026 · All selected publications · OpenAlex · Citations received by year: 2 · 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 publications033/3
2023All selected publications033/3
2024All selected publications033/3
2025All selected publications033/3
2026All selected publications233/3

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
3223/30.67166.73/3 · 100.0%

* Percentage among publications with a known citation count.

Explore publications

View all 3 →

Most cited · Crossref

JOURNAL ARTICLE

Integration of generative artificial intelligence into higher education research as a supporting tool: A balance between innovation and ethics in research

Shadreck Muchaku · Hlekani Kabiti · Bernard Nthambeleni

International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science · 2025

Read abstract

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.

DOI 10.20525/ijrbs.v14i6.40801 Crossref citations1 OpenAlex citations
JOURNAL ARTICLE

The disruptive nature of AI-Powered technologies: balancing the dichotomy of dependence and autonomy for IT Professionals

Mark Frater · Rodney Mushininga

International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science · 2025

Read abstract

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.

DOI 10.20525/ijrbs.v14i2.36781 Crossref citations1 OpenAlex citations
JOURNAL ARTICLE

Artificial Intelligence, Accounting Ethics, and Trust in Financial Reporting: Developing an Ethical AI Governance Framework

Ahmed Alribi

International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science · 2026

Read abstract

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.

DOI 10.20525/ijrbs.v15i5.53030 Crossref citations0 OpenAlex citations

Selected results

JOURNAL ARTICLE

Artificial Intelligence, Accounting Ethics, and Trust in Financial Reporting: Developing an Ethical AI Governance Framework

Ahmed Alribi

International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science · 2026

Read abstract

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.

DOI 10.20525/ijrbs.v15i5.53030 Crossref citations0 OpenAlex citations
JOURNAL ARTICLE

Integration of generative artificial intelligence into higher education research as a supporting tool: A balance between innovation and ethics in research

Shadreck Muchaku · Hlekani Kabiti · Bernard Nthambeleni

International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science · 2025

Read abstract

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.

DOI 10.20525/ijrbs.v14i6.40801 Crossref citations1 OpenAlex citations
JOURNAL ARTICLE

The disruptive nature of AI-Powered technologies: balancing the dichotomy of dependence and autonomy for IT Professionals

Mark Frater · Rodney Mushininga

International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science · 2025

Read abstract

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.

DOI 10.20525/ijrbs.v14i2.36781 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 →