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 CITATIONS33/3 with known counts
OPENALEX CITATIONS53/3 with known counts
OPENALEX MEAN1.67Per article with a known count
Explore articles 3 →
Filter collection Publication years, search & more
Reset
topic: AI in Service Interactions 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

Huazhong University of Science and Technology2I-Shou University13/3 records with data

Countries

China2Taiwan13/3 records with data

Primary topics

AI in Service Interactions33/3 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: 2026-10-21T07:23:05.172460+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 CITATIONS3
CROSSREF · CITED PUBLICATIONS33.3%
CROSSREF · MEAN CITATIONS1.0

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 CITATIONS5
DOI MATCH COVERAGE100.0%3 / 3 publications
MEAN · KNOWN COUNTS ONLY1.673 known · 0 unknown
MEDIAN · KNOWN COUNTS ONLY0

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 citations21–516–20021+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): 2026-10-21T07:22:52.641004+00:00 — 2026-10-21T07:23:05.172460+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: 1 · 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: 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 publications133/3
2025All selected publications233/3
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.

Mean1.0
Median0
No citations21–516–20021+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
3353/31.0033.33/3 · 100.0%

* Percentage among publications with a known citation count.

Explore publications

View all 3 →

Most cited · Crossref

JOURNAL ARTICLE

Unveiling the factors shaping consumer acceptance of AI assistant services in the hotel industry: a behavioral reasoning perspective

Md Tarikul Islam · Erhua Zhou

International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science · 2023

Read abstract

Technological advancements in automation, artificial intelligence (AI), and robotics have completely changed the service industries, including the hospitality sector. This study aims to investigate the fundamental elements that impact the acceptance (or rejection) of artificial intelligence assistants' services. This research employed semi-structured interviews to gather insights from both individuals who use AI services in hotels and those who do not. Based on Behavioral Reasoning Theory, this study is empirically tested by interviews with intended respondents. This study examines the "reasons for" and "reasons against" using AI assistant services in the hotel. Technology anxiety, privacy concern, prior experience, and task complexity are "reasons against," while performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social influence, facilitating conditions, humanness, social presence, perceived interaction enjoyment, cuteness, and trust are "reasons for." This study found that "reasons against" negatively affect attitude and adoption intention, while "reasons for" positively affect them. Behavioral Reasoning Theory is used for the first time to evaluate Bangladeshi hotel consumers' AI service assistant adoption intentions. As a new technology, AI assistants provide a better understanding of user usage. Furthermore, this study offers essential facts regarding the utilization of technology in the hospitality sector.

DOI 10.20525/ijrbs.v12i9.30783 Crossref citations5 OpenAlex citations
JOURNAL ARTICLE

Humans still touch hearts: Why human streamers spark more empathy and desire than AI in live commerce<i>?</i>

Madina Khudaykulova · Yuanqiong He

International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science · 2026

Read abstract

This paper aims to evaluate how the type of streamer (human vs. AI) influences consumer desire in live-streaming commerce through socio-cognitive and motivational mechanisms. Building on the CASA framework, Self-Determination Theory (SDT), and the Model of Goal-Directed Behavior (MGB), this study examines whether human and AI streamers differentially generate perceived empathy, which then activates intrinsic and extrinsic motivations leading to consumer desire. This paper also aims to test whether personal involvement and skepticism moderate the empathy–motivation pathway. A between-subjects experimental design was used to randomly assign participants to view identical livestreaming scripts presented by either a human or a humanoid AI streamer. Data from all 277 Chinese livestreaming participants were analyzed using PLS-SEM. The key findings show that (i) perceived empathy is significantly higher for human streamers than AI streamers, (ii) perceived empathy significantly boosts intrinsic motivation and consumer desire, with a smaller effect on extrinsic motivation, and (iii) intrinsic motivation, but not extrinsic motivation, is a significant predictor of consumer desire. Additionally, personal involvement strengthens the link between empathy and intrinsic motivation, while skepticism weakens the motivational pathways—especially in AI-based interactions. This research reveals that empathy is the main psychological link between streamer identity and consumer desire, and that intrinsic motivation is the dominant mechanism driving consumer engagement in live commerce, grounded in warmth and relatedness. The findings also indicate that emotional authenticity and the fulfillment of psychological needs remain crucial determinants of consumer desire, even in AI-mediated retail. Practical implications include enhancing empathetic communication and balancing the use of human and AI streamers in digital commerce.

DOI 10.20525/ijrbs.v14i10.47120 Crossref citations0 OpenAlex citations
JOURNAL ARTICLE

Understanding the drivers of customers' continuance intention to use AI chatbots in e-commerce

Quang Huy Trần

International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science · 2025

Read abstract

The e-commerce experience has been transformed by artificial intelligence, which has also opened new avenues for customer communication through chatbots. This study aims to examine how chatbot characteristics influence continuance intention in e-commerce. Specifically, it explores how interactivity, compatibility, information quality, and service quality affect users' perceptions of chatbot usefulness and enjoyment. A quantitative approach using Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) was employed for data analysis. The main findings reveal that (i) information quality and service quality positively influence both perceived usefulness and perceived enjoyment of chatbots, which in turn enhance continuance intention; (ii) compatibility positively affects perceived enjoyment but not perceived usefulness; and (iii) interactivity moderates the relationship between information quality and both perceived usefulness and enjoyment. This study extends the Technology Acceptance Model by incorporating service-related and interactive factors, contributing to the growing body of knowledge on consumer behavior and technology adoption in e-commerce. The findings offer valuable insights for chatbot designers, managers, and customer service practitioners.

DOI 10.20525/ijrbs.v14i5.42720 Crossref citations0 OpenAlex citations

Selected results

JOURNAL ARTICLE

Humans still touch hearts: Why human streamers spark more empathy and desire than AI in live commerce<i>?</i>

Madina Khudaykulova · Yuanqiong He

International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science · 2026

Read abstract

This paper aims to evaluate how the type of streamer (human vs. AI) influences consumer desire in live-streaming commerce through socio-cognitive and motivational mechanisms. Building on the CASA framework, Self-Determination Theory (SDT), and the Model of Goal-Directed Behavior (MGB), this study examines whether human and AI streamers differentially generate perceived empathy, which then activates intrinsic and extrinsic motivations leading to consumer desire. This paper also aims to test whether personal involvement and skepticism moderate the empathy–motivation pathway. A between-subjects experimental design was used to randomly assign participants to view identical livestreaming scripts presented by either a human or a humanoid AI streamer. Data from all 277 Chinese livestreaming participants were analyzed using PLS-SEM. The key findings show that (i) perceived empathy is significantly higher for human streamers than AI streamers, (ii) perceived empathy significantly boosts intrinsic motivation and consumer desire, with a smaller effect on extrinsic motivation, and (iii) intrinsic motivation, but not extrinsic motivation, is a significant predictor of consumer desire. Additionally, personal involvement strengthens the link between empathy and intrinsic motivation, while skepticism weakens the motivational pathways—especially in AI-based interactions. This research reveals that empathy is the main psychological link between streamer identity and consumer desire, and that intrinsic motivation is the dominant mechanism driving consumer engagement in live commerce, grounded in warmth and relatedness. The findings also indicate that emotional authenticity and the fulfillment of psychological needs remain crucial determinants of consumer desire, even in AI-mediated retail. Practical implications include enhancing empathetic communication and balancing the use of human and AI streamers in digital commerce.

DOI 10.20525/ijrbs.v14i10.47120 Crossref citations0 OpenAlex citations
JOURNAL ARTICLE

Understanding the drivers of customers' continuance intention to use AI chatbots in e-commerce

Quang Huy Trần

International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science · 2025

Read abstract

The e-commerce experience has been transformed by artificial intelligence, which has also opened new avenues for customer communication through chatbots. This study aims to examine how chatbot characteristics influence continuance intention in e-commerce. Specifically, it explores how interactivity, compatibility, information quality, and service quality affect users' perceptions of chatbot usefulness and enjoyment. A quantitative approach using Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) was employed for data analysis. The main findings reveal that (i) information quality and service quality positively influence both perceived usefulness and perceived enjoyment of chatbots, which in turn enhance continuance intention; (ii) compatibility positively affects perceived enjoyment but not perceived usefulness; and (iii) interactivity moderates the relationship between information quality and both perceived usefulness and enjoyment. This study extends the Technology Acceptance Model by incorporating service-related and interactive factors, contributing to the growing body of knowledge on consumer behavior and technology adoption in e-commerce. The findings offer valuable insights for chatbot designers, managers, and customer service practitioners.

DOI 10.20525/ijrbs.v14i5.42720 Crossref citations0 OpenAlex citations
JOURNAL ARTICLE

Unveiling the factors shaping consumer acceptance of AI assistant services in the hotel industry: a behavioral reasoning perspective

Md Tarikul Islam · Erhua Zhou

International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science · 2023

Read abstract

Technological advancements in automation, artificial intelligence (AI), and robotics have completely changed the service industries, including the hospitality sector. This study aims to investigate the fundamental elements that impact the acceptance (or rejection) of artificial intelligence assistants' services. This research employed semi-structured interviews to gather insights from both individuals who use AI services in hotels and those who do not. Based on Behavioral Reasoning Theory, this study is empirically tested by interviews with intended respondents. This study examines the "reasons for" and "reasons against" using AI assistant services in the hotel. Technology anxiety, privacy concern, prior experience, and task complexity are "reasons against," while performance expectancy, effort expectancy, social influence, facilitating conditions, humanness, social presence, perceived interaction enjoyment, cuteness, and trust are "reasons for." This study found that "reasons against" negatively affect attitude and adoption intention, while "reasons for" positively affect them. Behavioral Reasoning Theory is used for the first time to evaluate Bangladeshi hotel consumers' AI service assistant adoption intentions. As a new technology, AI assistants provide a better understanding of user usage. Furthermore, this study offers essential facts regarding the utilization of technology in the hospitality sector.

DOI 10.20525/ijrbs.v12i9.30783 Crossref citations5 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 →