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: 2 / 2 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 — 22 Oct 2026 08:10 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 / 2 with data · 0 missing or unmatched. Percentages use all 2 selected publications.
2 / 2 with data · 0 missing or unmatched. Percentages use all 2 selected publications.
2 / 2 with data · 0 missing or unmatched. Percentages use all 2 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2023 | All selected publications | 2 | 2 | 2/2 | 2/2 |
| Publication year | Journal / scope | Crossref citations | Publications | Crossref known | OpenAlex known |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2023 | All selected publications | 11 | 2 | 2/2 | 2/2 |
| Publication year | Journal / scope | OpenAlex citations | Publications | Crossref known | OpenAlex known |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2023 | All selected publications | 14 | 2 | 2/2 | 2/2 |
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 2 / 2 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): 2026-10-21T07:22:46.696872+00:00 — 2026-10-22T08:10:31.275680+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 | 2 | 2/2 |
| 2018 | All selected publications | 0 | 2 | 2/2 |
| 2019 | All selected publications | 0 | 2 | 2/2 |
| 2020 | All selected publications | 0 | 2 | 2/2 |
| 2021 | All selected publications | 0 | 2 | 2/2 |
| 2022 | All selected publications | 0 | 2 | 2/2 |
| 2023 | All selected publications | 0 | 2 | 2/2 |
| 2024 | All selected publications | 6 | 2 | 2/2 |
| 2025 | All selected publications | 7 | 2 | 2/2 |
| 2026 | All selected publications | 1 | 2 | 2/2 |
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 |
|---|---|
| 2023 | 2 |
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 | 2 | 11 | 14 | 2/2 | 5.5 | 5.5 | 100.0 | 2/2 · 100.0% |
* Percentage among publications with a known citation count.
The digital divide (DD), which refers to the gap resulting from unequal access to digital technology hardware, software and ideological-ware resources, arises from disparities in accessing, material and physical resources that enable internet access. In the contemporary world, this divide extends beyond internet access to include the ability to manipulate educational technologies in the knowledge building process. Therefore, the installation of the internet infrastructure in communities should not be considered as the sole facility to access. In attempting to curb the DD, blended learning is seen to be a possible viable option. It is against this backdrop that this article sought to explore the role of blended learning in neutralising DD. This qualitative case study employed the resources and appropriation theory as a lens to analyse DD as a result of societal inequalities and unequal distribution of resources. The community of Inquiry (COI) framework was also used as a theoretical lens to guide the implementation of social and cognitive knowledge-building in a blended learning context. The reported study employed purposive sampling involving 26 participants who were the recipients of blended learning in one institution of higher learning (HEI) in Lesotho. Data were generated through reflective journals and one-on-one semi-structured interviews, and guided analysis was used to interpret the generated data. The findings established that blended learning has the capacity to neutralise DD, as it affords students the flexibility to design and engage in individualised learning experiences through both offline and online modes of teaching and learning, thereby meeting their access needs. The recommendation proposed in this article, thus, is for HEIs to adopt blended learning to eliminate categorical inequalities and social divisions in education, ideally promoting equilibrated inclusion of individuals from diverse socio-economic backgrounds in the teaching and learning process.
This study was designed to analyze the predictors of the academic performance of distance e-learners. The population consisted of all distance learners in the university study centers in the South-West geopolitical zone. The sample of the study was made up of 1025 respondents from the university, which were selected using a purposive sampling technique. A mixed-method approach was used for the collection of data. This study applied ordinal regression analysis in searching for the best predictors among the variables under investigation in predicting the academic performance of distance e-learners. A quantitative approach was used to determine the best predictors. In contrast, a qualitative approach was used to support the quantitative results and reveal other variables not covered in the questionnaire. Results showed that five variables best predicted academic performance, and together they explained 10% of the variance in academic performance after considering all the rules that guide ordinal regression analysis. Frequency of engagement with information and communication technology (ICT) was found to be the strongest predictor, followed by students’ ICT literacy levels, marital status, previous academic performance and entry qualification. Based on the study's findings, it was recommended that policymakers and educational stakeholders fully support the implementation of e-learning in Nigerian universities.
The digital divide (DD), which refers to the gap resulting from unequal access to digital technology hardware, software and ideological-ware resources, arises from disparities in accessing, material and physical resources that enable internet access. In the contemporary world, this divide extends beyond internet access to include the ability to manipulate educational technologies in the knowledge building process. Therefore, the installation of the internet infrastructure in communities should not be considered as the sole facility to access. In attempting to curb the DD, blended learning is seen to be a possible viable option. It is against this backdrop that this article sought to explore the role of blended learning in neutralising DD. This qualitative case study employed the resources and appropriation theory as a lens to analyse DD as a result of societal inequalities and unequal distribution of resources. The community of Inquiry (COI) framework was also used as a theoretical lens to guide the implementation of social and cognitive knowledge-building in a blended learning context. The reported study employed purposive sampling involving 26 participants who were the recipients of blended learning in one institution of higher learning (HEI) in Lesotho. Data were generated through reflective journals and one-on-one semi-structured interviews, and guided analysis was used to interpret the generated data. The findings established that blended learning has the capacity to neutralise DD, as it affords students the flexibility to design and engage in individualised learning experiences through both offline and online modes of teaching and learning, thereby meeting their access needs. The recommendation proposed in this article, thus, is for HEIs to adopt blended learning to eliminate categorical inequalities and social divisions in education, ideally promoting equilibrated inclusion of individuals from diverse socio-economic backgrounds in the teaching and learning process.
This study was designed to analyze the predictors of the academic performance of distance e-learners. The population consisted of all distance learners in the university study centers in the South-West geopolitical zone. The sample of the study was made up of 1025 respondents from the university, which were selected using a purposive sampling technique. A mixed-method approach was used for the collection of data. This study applied ordinal regression analysis in searching for the best predictors among the variables under investigation in predicting the academic performance of distance e-learners. A quantitative approach was used to determine the best predictors. In contrast, a qualitative approach was used to support the quantitative results and reveal other variables not covered in the questionnaire. Results showed that five variables best predicted academic performance, and together they explained 10% of the variance in academic performance after considering all the rules that guide ordinal regression analysis. Frequency of engagement with information and communication technology (ICT) was found to be the strongest predictor, followed by students’ ICT literacy levels, marital status, previous academic performance and entry qualification. Based on the study's findings, it was recommended that policymakers and educational stakeholders fully support the implementation of e-learning in Nigerian universities.
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 |