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 — 22 Oct 2026 03:07 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.
3 / 3 with data · 0 missing or unmatched. Percentages use all 3 selected publications.
3 / 3 with data · 0 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2022 | All selected publications | 3 | 3 | 3/3 | 3/3 |
| Publication year | Journal / scope | Crossref citations | Publications | Crossref known | OpenAlex known |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2022 | All selected publications | 9 | 3 | 3/3 | 3/3 |
| Publication year | Journal / scope | OpenAlex citations | Publications | Crossref known | OpenAlex known |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2022 | All selected publications | 13 | 3 | 3/3 | 3/3 |
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): 2026-10-21T07:22:43.970618+00:00 — 2026-10-22T03:07:45.934857+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 | 1 | 3 | 3/3 |
| 2023 | All selected publications | 6 | 3 | 3/3 |
| 2024 | All selected publications | 3 | 3 | 3/3 |
| 2025 | All selected publications | 3 | 3 | 3/3 |
| 2026 | All selected publications | 0 | 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 |
|---|---|
| 2022 | 3 |
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 | 9 | 13 | 3/3 | 3.0 | 3 | 66.7 | 3/3 · 100.0% |
* Percentage among publications with a known citation count.
Leadership theories have underpinned significant leadership studies and practices which span decades. Despite the plethora of research on different leadership theories and styles, there is minimal research exploring the relationship between previous leadership theories and the ethical leadership style. Previous research has shown that the ethical leadership effect goes above and beyond other leadership styles and theories as the latter lack an exclusive ethical focus. Therefore, this paper aims to address the identified gap from a preliminary perspective of previous leadership theories as compared to the ethical leadership style. In addition, ethical leadership is the ‘only’ leadership style that is part of the King IV code and report on Corporate Governance in South Africa. The study is built on previous research conducted on leadership theories in relation to ethical leadership and corporate governance as per the King IV report. The method employed involved conducting a historical narrative review of research from more than 60 relevant sources obtained from different databases and search engines on this topic. The paper found that a relationship exists between historical and contemporary leadership theories, contemporary theories and ethical leadership style, and ethical leadership and corporate governance. Stemming from these results, a conceptual model of the relationship between leadership theories, ethical leadership style, and Ubuntu ethics is shown. It is hoped that different types of organizations in South Africa will benefit from this review paper since most need to comply with the King IV report and code. The focus should be on ethical leadership as it promotes better employee performance and positive organizational outcomes.
Misconduct, in any form, whether corruption, theft, mismanagement of funds, maladministration, non-compliance of rules, etc. may create unethical environment in an organisation. This situation, if not get corrected timely, may have a negative impact on organisational performance as employees may be more inclined to focus on personal gains than working towards realising orgaisational vision. Authors of this article have utilised various official reports to substantiate this statement, and hence avoid a biased approach. The study focuses on the Local Government Sector Education Training Authority (LGSETA), to assess whether there is misconduct that limits the organization’s ability to establish an ethical culture. The study is based on qualitative desktop analysis utilising literature and document reviews to gather information. The findings explore varied ethical challenges and thus discuss measures to combat misconduct in LGSETA. The study recommends the adoption of the Governance Operating Model, suggested by Deloitte (2013) that can assist LGSETA to minimise misconduct by implementing measures to institute and promote an ethical culture.
Cheating occasionally occurs in organizations; sometimes, it is not easy to detect. Some organizations, such as schools and companies, may include an assessment of individuals' moral character as part of their assessments. Some people believe that when a person is evaluated as moral, he or she will continue to behave ethically. Conversely, when a person is rated below his or her level, he or she will strive to perform better. This article aims to investigate a person's private response to being assessed by their peers for their moral character. We conducted two experimental studies. Study 1 consisted of two groups. Participants in the high-score group received higher ratings from their peers than themselves, while participants in the low-score group received worse ratings than their own. In the following dice-under-cup game, participants in the high-score group were more likely to cheat than those in the low-score group. Study 2 showed that both groups reported varying satisfaction, happiness, and disappointment. In addition, those in the high-score group were more likely to increase their honesty ratings, while those in the low group did not. Our results suggest that assessments of an individual's moral character may not have desirable outcomes as some people believe.
Leadership theories have underpinned significant leadership studies and practices which span decades. Despite the plethora of research on different leadership theories and styles, there is minimal research exploring the relationship between previous leadership theories and the ethical leadership style. Previous research has shown that the ethical leadership effect goes above and beyond other leadership styles and theories as the latter lack an exclusive ethical focus. Therefore, this paper aims to address the identified gap from a preliminary perspective of previous leadership theories as compared to the ethical leadership style. In addition, ethical leadership is the ‘only’ leadership style that is part of the King IV code and report on Corporate Governance in South Africa. The study is built on previous research conducted on leadership theories in relation to ethical leadership and corporate governance as per the King IV report. The method employed involved conducting a historical narrative review of research from more than 60 relevant sources obtained from different databases and search engines on this topic. The paper found that a relationship exists between historical and contemporary leadership theories, contemporary theories and ethical leadership style, and ethical leadership and corporate governance. Stemming from these results, a conceptual model of the relationship between leadership theories, ethical leadership style, and Ubuntu ethics is shown. It is hoped that different types of organizations in South Africa will benefit from this review paper since most need to comply with the King IV report and code. The focus should be on ethical leadership as it promotes better employee performance and positive organizational outcomes.
Cheating occasionally occurs in organizations; sometimes, it is not easy to detect. Some organizations, such as schools and companies, may include an assessment of individuals' moral character as part of their assessments. Some people believe that when a person is evaluated as moral, he or she will continue to behave ethically. Conversely, when a person is rated below his or her level, he or she will strive to perform better. This article aims to investigate a person's private response to being assessed by their peers for their moral character. We conducted two experimental studies. Study 1 consisted of two groups. Participants in the high-score group received higher ratings from their peers than themselves, while participants in the low-score group received worse ratings than their own. In the following dice-under-cup game, participants in the high-score group were more likely to cheat than those in the low-score group. Study 2 showed that both groups reported varying satisfaction, happiness, and disappointment. In addition, those in the high-score group were more likely to increase their honesty ratings, while those in the low group did not. Our results suggest that assessments of an individual's moral character may not have desirable outcomes as some people believe.
Misconduct, in any form, whether corruption, theft, mismanagement of funds, maladministration, non-compliance of rules, etc. may create unethical environment in an organisation. This situation, if not get corrected timely, may have a negative impact on organisational performance as employees may be more inclined to focus on personal gains than working towards realising orgaisational vision. Authors of this article have utilised various official reports to substantiate this statement, and hence avoid a biased approach. The study focuses on the Local Government Sector Education Training Authority (LGSETA), to assess whether there is misconduct that limits the organization’s ability to establish an ethical culture. The study is based on qualitative desktop analysis utilising literature and document reviews to gather information. The findings explore varied ethical challenges and thus discuss measures to combat misconduct in LGSETA. The study recommends the adoption of the Governance Operating Model, suggested by Deloitte (2013) that can assist LGSETA to minimise misconduct by implementing measures to institute and promote an ethical culture.
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 |