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: 5 / 5 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 07:22 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.
5 / 5 with data · 0 missing or unmatched. Percentages use all 5 selected publications.
5 / 5 with data · 0 missing or unmatched. Percentages use all 5 selected publications.
5 / 5 with data · 0 missing or unmatched. Percentages use all 5 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 | 5 | 5 | 5/5 | 5/5 |
| Publication year | Journal / scope | Crossref citations | Publications | Crossref known | OpenAlex known |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2023 | All selected publications | 15 | 5 | 5/5 | 5/5 |
| Publication year | Journal / scope | OpenAlex citations | Publications | Crossref known | OpenAlex known |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2023 | All selected publications | 20 | 5 | 5/5 | 5/5 |
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 5 / 5 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): 2026-10-21T07:22:48.093574+00:00 — 2026-10-21T07:22:52.638916+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 | 5 | 5/5 |
| 2018 | All selected publications | 0 | 5 | 5/5 |
| 2019 | All selected publications | 0 | 5 | 5/5 |
| 2020 | All selected publications | 0 | 5 | 5/5 |
| 2021 | All selected publications | 0 | 5 | 5/5 |
| 2022 | All selected publications | 0 | 5 | 5/5 |
| 2023 | All selected publications | 0 | 5 | 5/5 |
| 2024 | All selected publications | 6 | 5 | 5/5 |
| 2025 | All selected publications | 10 | 5 | 5/5 |
| 2026 | All selected publications | 4 | 5 | 5/5 |
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 | 5 |
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 | 5 | 15 | 20 | 5/5 | 3.0 | 3 | 80.0 | 5/5 · 100.0% |
* Percentage among publications with a known citation count.
The study looked at how the differences in gender and the social setting affect society's perceptions of women’s ability to communicate as leaders. Research shows how culture influences individual thinking, language, communication, and behaviour. The study indicated that gender construct influences individuals’ attitudes, emotions, and behaviours. The same is true for assigned positions in society depending on gender and leadership position. The problem identified cultural aspects of leadership that represent variations in gender norms and communication styles for women in leadership and elements linked to sexual distinction. This article, therefore, focuses on the problems that culture influences gender communication. The research adopted a qualitative approach, a systematic analysis of the literature of the baseline data collected, forming part of a randomised controlled sample collection. The findings indicate the persistent gender discrepancies in communication in several contexts, as women prefer to use more concrete vocabulary in several contexts, emphasising how people can achieve goals, including specifics, and using terms that are easy to imagine. It is no mystery that we are in a period of transformation, and attitudes about sex and gender leadership are changing, therefore, understanding the problems of sexual difference and women’s ability to communicate in leadership can be addressed by creating and strengthening an adequate framework with the condition of a mentality change.
This study investigates the relationship between board nationality diversity (BND) and environmental, social, and governance (ESG) in developing countries. It also highlights the role of legitimacy concerns in investigating how foreign ownership moderates the connection between BND and ESG due to the increased liability of foreignness. Using a sample of listed firms in Johannesburg stock exchange (JSE) in South Africa over 2015–2020, our two-step system GMM findings show that board nationality diversity positively affects ESG. Moreover, our study found that foreign ownership strengthens the positive connection between BND and ESG. Our study contributes to the literature by highlighting the importance of legitimacy theory in the dynamic nexus between BND and ESG. The findings of this study have substantial implications for firms, investors, and stakeholders.
This study seeks to determine whether gender diversity in the boardroom improves the financial performance of listed firms in Tanzania by examining theoretical and empirical findings and using 90 firm-year observations of 15 listed firms over six years from 2016–2021 from firms listed at the Dar es Salaam Stock Exchange (DSE). Return on equity (ROE) and Return on asset (ROA) were used as financial performance metrics. This study uses a balanced panel data analysis. The results showed that there was no statistically significant relationship between the percentages of women directors on boards or in executive roles and the financial performance of listed firms in Tanzania as measured by ROA and ROE. The results are inconsistent with theories of agency and resource dependence. The study is restricted to a sample of listed firms from DSE in Tanzania. The scope of future studies should be expanded to include listed firms across the East African region and more explanatory variables such as the Blau index in measuring boardroom gender diversity.
The study examined the impact of the gender inequality gap in administration which serves as a interference to achieving sustainable social and economic development in Africa. The existence of gender differences has been overlooked in management and leadership research; hence it remains a reality that women are underrepresented in leading management positions in general on the ground, and particularly in leadership roles. The main question is if women’s call to occupy leadership positions is a complete reality or if it is purely a pursuit for political acceptability. Gender gaps in the workforce over the last two decades remained largely unaffected, notwithstanding the increased number of women who have acquired education. Qualitatively, data was primarily collected through secondary content. The need to improve the education systems in low and middle-income countries is recommended, as all countries can reap the benefit of optimizing their deployment of female-skilled professionals and leverage their talent.
Extensive research has been dedicated to the study of women on boards, revealing a gradual improvement in the actual representation of women as directors on firm boards. This paper presents a comprehensive critical theory framework that combines talent management with corporate governance, human resources, and gender theories to elucidate the underrepresentation of women on corporate boards. This conceptual study, conducted through theoretical literature analysis, identifies a knowledge gap in the limited attention given to studies on the talent of women serving on boards. The purpose of this essay was to explain the sluggish progress of female directors on boards globally, despite the implementation of different laws and the evident business rationale for enhancing women's presence on boards. This study incorporates divergent and unanimous critical analyses of women on boards research, which either facilitates or impedes the advancement of women to executive positions. The primary discoveries of this study enhance the existing information by pinpointing several obstacles that contribute to the underrepresentation of women on corporate boards. These problems stem from structural factors inside organizations, individual psychological factors, and societal preconceptions. These theoretical perspectives identify obstacles and biases in the process of recruiting, developing, and retaining women directors. The implementation of a suitable talent management solution can address these issues.
This study investigates the relationship between board nationality diversity (BND) and environmental, social, and governance (ESG) in developing countries. It also highlights the role of legitimacy concerns in investigating how foreign ownership moderates the connection between BND and ESG due to the increased liability of foreignness. Using a sample of listed firms in Johannesburg stock exchange (JSE) in South Africa over 2015–2020, our two-step system GMM findings show that board nationality diversity positively affects ESG. Moreover, our study found that foreign ownership strengthens the positive connection between BND and ESG. Our study contributes to the literature by highlighting the importance of legitimacy theory in the dynamic nexus between BND and ESG. The findings of this study have substantial implications for firms, investors, and stakeholders.
Extensive research has been dedicated to the study of women on boards, revealing a gradual improvement in the actual representation of women as directors on firm boards. This paper presents a comprehensive critical theory framework that combines talent management with corporate governance, human resources, and gender theories to elucidate the underrepresentation of women on corporate boards. This conceptual study, conducted through theoretical literature analysis, identifies a knowledge gap in the limited attention given to studies on the talent of women serving on boards. The purpose of this essay was to explain the sluggish progress of female directors on boards globally, despite the implementation of different laws and the evident business rationale for enhancing women's presence on boards. This study incorporates divergent and unanimous critical analyses of women on boards research, which either facilitates or impedes the advancement of women to executive positions. The primary discoveries of this study enhance the existing information by pinpointing several obstacles that contribute to the underrepresentation of women on corporate boards. These problems stem from structural factors inside organizations, individual psychological factors, and societal preconceptions. These theoretical perspectives identify obstacles and biases in the process of recruiting, developing, and retaining women directors. The implementation of a suitable talent management solution can address these issues.
The study looked at how the differences in gender and the social setting affect society's perceptions of women’s ability to communicate as leaders. Research shows how culture influences individual thinking, language, communication, and behaviour. The study indicated that gender construct influences individuals’ attitudes, emotions, and behaviours. The same is true for assigned positions in society depending on gender and leadership position. The problem identified cultural aspects of leadership that represent variations in gender norms and communication styles for women in leadership and elements linked to sexual distinction. This article, therefore, focuses on the problems that culture influences gender communication. The research adopted a qualitative approach, a systematic analysis of the literature of the baseline data collected, forming part of a randomised controlled sample collection. The findings indicate the persistent gender discrepancies in communication in several contexts, as women prefer to use more concrete vocabulary in several contexts, emphasising how people can achieve goals, including specifics, and using terms that are easy to imagine. It is no mystery that we are in a period of transformation, and attitudes about sex and gender leadership are changing, therefore, understanding the problems of sexual difference and women’s ability to communicate in leadership can be addressed by creating and strengthening an adequate framework with the condition of a mentality change.
The study examined the impact of the gender inequality gap in administration which serves as a interference to achieving sustainable social and economic development in Africa. The existence of gender differences has been overlooked in management and leadership research; hence it remains a reality that women are underrepresented in leading management positions in general on the ground, and particularly in leadership roles. The main question is if women’s call to occupy leadership positions is a complete reality or if it is purely a pursuit for political acceptability. Gender gaps in the workforce over the last two decades remained largely unaffected, notwithstanding the increased number of women who have acquired education. Qualitatively, data was primarily collected through secondary content. The need to improve the education systems in low and middle-income countries is recommended, as all countries can reap the benefit of optimizing their deployment of female-skilled professionals and leverage their talent.
This study seeks to determine whether gender diversity in the boardroom improves the financial performance of listed firms in Tanzania by examining theoretical and empirical findings and using 90 firm-year observations of 15 listed firms over six years from 2016–2021 from firms listed at the Dar es Salaam Stock Exchange (DSE). Return on equity (ROE) and Return on asset (ROA) were used as financial performance metrics. This study uses a balanced panel data analysis. The results showed that there was no statistically significant relationship between the percentages of women directors on boards or in executive roles and the financial performance of listed firms in Tanzania as measured by ROA and ROE. The results are inconsistent with theories of agency and resource dependence. The study is restricted to a sample of listed firms from DSE in Tanzania. The scope of future studies should be expanded to include listed firms across the East African region and more explanatory variables such as the Blau index in measuring boardroom gender diversity.
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 |