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 07:23 UTC — 22 Oct 2026 01:14 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026 | All selected publications | 2 | 2 | 2/2 | 2/2 |
| Publication year | Journal / scope | Crossref citations | Publications | Crossref known | OpenAlex known |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026 | All selected publications | 0 | 2 | 2/2 | 2/2 |
| Publication year | Journal / scope | OpenAlex citations | Publications | Crossref known | OpenAlex known |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026 | All selected publications | 0 | 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): 2026-10-21T07:23:06.685742+00:00 — 2026-10-22T01:14:53.584124+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 | 0 | 2 | 2/2 |
| 2025 | All selected publications | 0 | 2 | 2/2 |
| 2026 | All selected publications | 0 | 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 |
|---|---|
| 2026 | 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 Business Ecosystem & Strategy Bussecon International Academy | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1/1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 | 1/1 · 100.0% |
| International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science SSBFNET | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1/1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 | 1/1 · 100.0% |
* Percentage among publications with a known citation count.
This study investigates the effectiveness of communication tools and practices employed by a local municipality in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa, in facilitating meaningful engagement with its stakeholders. A mixed methods research design was adopted, incorporating quantitative data from a structured survey administered across four communities (n = 432), alongside qualitative insights from an interview with a communications department staff member. Findings indicate that only 20.3% of respondents reported receiving communication from the municipality, while the majority experienced limited interaction. Council meetings were identified as the most recognised communication channel. Some participants suggested that communication challenges may contribute to community unrest, including protests. Although the municipality reported using multiple communication platforms, respondents expressed that these channels did not effectively address their concerns. The results reveal a notable disconnect between institutional communication efforts and community perceptions, suggesting that current practices fall short of participatory and two-way communication standards. The study concludes that enhancing communication strategies may assist municipalities to foster public trust, reduce conflict and promote active civic participation.
The calibre of information disseminated by higher education institutions (HEIs) is a pivotal element in student recruitment and institutional prestige. Although student-led organisations like clubs and societies serve as impactful peer-to-peer communication channels, the quality of the information they disseminate is frequently unregulated, presenting a considerable institutional risk. This study assesses the quality of material disseminated by student clubs and organisations to prospective students at a South African University of Technology. The evaluation is founded on essential dimensions of information quality: accuracy, integrity, consistency, completeness, validity, timeliness, and accessibility. The research utilised two theoretical frameworks: the Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA) cycle and Organisational Information Theory (OIT). The PDCA cycle transcends quality enhancement, functioning as an ongoing mechanism for organisational advancement, whilst the Organisational Information Theory aids in comprehending information dissemination within an organization. This qualitative research employed an interpretivist framework. Data were gathered via comprehensive interviews and two focus groups with 46 chairpersons and secretaries from 23 clubs and societies, augmented by an examination of their social media platforms. The findings indicate that the quality of information presents a systemic difficulty, stemming from an ambiguous and uneven comprehension of "quality information," a lack of internal quality standards, and an inadequate knowledge of institutional norms. The research suggests that clubs and societies function as influential yet predominantly unregulated information gatekeepers. In the absence of explicit policies and training, they risk disseminating disinformation, thereby harming institutional reputation and adversely affecting student recruitment. It is advisable for higher education institutions to establish explicit rules and cooperative methods to enable these groups to become dependable participants in the information ecosystem.
The calibre of information disseminated by higher education institutions (HEIs) is a pivotal element in student recruitment and institutional prestige. Although student-led organisations like clubs and societies serve as impactful peer-to-peer communication channels, the quality of the information they disseminate is frequently unregulated, presenting a considerable institutional risk. This study assesses the quality of material disseminated by student clubs and organisations to prospective students at a South African University of Technology. The evaluation is founded on essential dimensions of information quality: accuracy, integrity, consistency, completeness, validity, timeliness, and accessibility. The research utilised two theoretical frameworks: the Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA) cycle and Organisational Information Theory (OIT). The PDCA cycle transcends quality enhancement, functioning as an ongoing mechanism for organisational advancement, whilst the Organisational Information Theory aids in comprehending information dissemination within an organization. This qualitative research employed an interpretivist framework. Data were gathered via comprehensive interviews and two focus groups with 46 chairpersons and secretaries from 23 clubs and societies, augmented by an examination of their social media platforms. The findings indicate that the quality of information presents a systemic difficulty, stemming from an ambiguous and uneven comprehension of "quality information," a lack of internal quality standards, and an inadequate knowledge of institutional norms. The research suggests that clubs and societies function as influential yet predominantly unregulated information gatekeepers. In the absence of explicit policies and training, they risk disseminating disinformation, thereby harming institutional reputation and adversely affecting student recruitment. It is advisable for higher education institutions to establish explicit rules and cooperative methods to enable these groups to become dependable participants in the information ecosystem.
This study investigates the effectiveness of communication tools and practices employed by a local municipality in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa, in facilitating meaningful engagement with its stakeholders. A mixed methods research design was adopted, incorporating quantitative data from a structured survey administered across four communities (n = 432), alongside qualitative insights from an interview with a communications department staff member. Findings indicate that only 20.3% of respondents reported receiving communication from the municipality, while the majority experienced limited interaction. Council meetings were identified as the most recognised communication channel. Some participants suggested that communication challenges may contribute to community unrest, including protests. Although the municipality reported using multiple communication platforms, respondents expressed that these channels did not effectively address their concerns. The results reveal a notable disconnect between institutional communication efforts and community perceptions, suggesting that current practices fall short of participatory and two-way communication standards. The study concludes that enhancing communication strategies may assist municipalities to foster public trust, reduce conflict and promote active civic participation.
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 |