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% · 2/2 recordsLast OpenAlex observation 22 Oct 2026, 01:28 UTC
PUBLICATIONS2In the selected collection
CROSSREF CITATIONS22/2 with known counts
OPENALEX CITATIONS82/2 with known counts
OPENALEX MEAN4.0Per article with a known count
Explore articles 2 →
Filter collection Publication years, search & more
Reset
topic: Evaluation and Performance Assessment 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

University of Nairobi22/2 records with data

Countries

Kenya22/2 records with data

Primary topics

Evaluation and Performance Assessment22/2 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: 2/2 articles. Latest history observation: 2026-10-22T01:28:51.656860+00:00. Source totals are never added together.
Research side by side

Compare 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
2 MATCHING PUBLICATIONSExplore results →Export CSV ↓
INDEXED PUBLICATIONS2
CROSSREF CITATIONS2
CROSSREF · CITED PUBLICATIONS100.0%
CROSSREF · MEAN CITATIONS1.0

Crossref citation coverage: 2 / 2 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 CITATIONS8
DOI MATCH COVERAGE100.0%2 / 2 publications
MEAN · KNOWN COUNTS ONLY4.02 known · 0 unknown
MEDIAN · KNOWN COUNTS ONLY4.0

Observation range: 22 Oct 2026 01:12 UTC — 22 Oct 2026 01:28 UTC. Missing matches are not zero citations. Previous observations may remain if a refresh fails or a DOI no longer matches.

OpenAlex citation distributionNo citations01–526–20021+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

2 / 2 with data · 0 missing or unmatched. Percentages use all 2 selected publications.

Countries

2 / 2 with data · 0 missing or unmatched. Percentages use all 2 selected publications.

Primary topics

2 / 2 with data · 0 missing or unmatched. Percentages use all 2 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 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): 2026-10-22T01:12:30.097231+00:00 — 2026-10-22T01:28:51.656860+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 2/22018 · All selected publications · OpenAlex · Citations received by year: 0 · Annual history coverage 2/22019 · All selected publications · OpenAlex · Citations received by year: 0 · Annual history coverage 2/22020 · All selected publications · OpenAlex · Citations received by year: 0 · Annual history coverage 2/22021 · All selected publications · OpenAlex · Citations received by year: 1 · Annual history coverage 2/22022 · All selected publications · OpenAlex · Citations received by year: 2 · Annual history coverage 2/22023 · All selected publications · OpenAlex · Citations received by year: 1 · Annual history coverage 2/22024 · All selected publications · OpenAlex · Citations received by year: 2 · Annual history coverage 2/22025 · All selected publications · OpenAlex · Citations received by year: 1 · Annual history coverage 2/22026 · All selected publications · OpenAlex · Citations received by year: 1 · Annual history coverage 2/2 2017201820192020202120222023202420252026
View openalex · citations received by year data & coverage
Citation yearJournal / scopeOpenAlex · Citations received by yearPublicationsAnnual history known
2017All selected publications022/2
2018All selected publications022/2
2019All selected publications022/2
2020All selected publications022/2
2021All selected publications122/2
2022All selected publications222/2
2023All selected publications122/2
2024All selected publications222/2
2025All selected publications122/2
2026All selected publications122/2

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 ↗

Crossref citation distribution

Latest Crossref totals for the selected publications; not citations received in the selected years.

Mean1.0
Median1.0
No citations01–526–20021+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
2282/21.01.0100.02/2 · 100.0%

* Percentage among publications with a known citation count.

Explore publications

View all 2 →

Most cited · Crossref

JOURNAL ARTICLE

Enhancing sustainability of donor funded livelihood projects in Kilifi County through effective monitoring and evaluation

Cornel Likale Ndombi · Dorothy Ndunge Kyalo · Angeline Sabina Mulwa

International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science · 2020

Read abstract

Benefactor organizations have greatly funded livelihood projects and programs in Kilifi County. However, these projects grapple with sustainability. Some halt operations instantaneously the funding is withdrawn. The purpose of the study was to investigate the influence of monitoring and evaluation (participation; tools; and timing and frequency) on the sustainability of donor-funded livelihood projects in Kilifi County, Kenya. The descriptive correlational research design was used with a sample of 170 from a population of 295 from three livelihood projects. Seven interviews and three focus group discussions were carried out. Standard deviations, standard error of means, arithmetic means, Pearson’s Product moment correlation, and linear regression were used. The perception of sustainability did not differ significantly with projects, gender, age, and marital status. However, perception differed based on the highest level of education and duration in the project. H0, r=0.458, p=0.000389<0.05 was rejected and concluded that monitoring and evaluation significantly influenced the sustainability of donor-funded livelihood projects. Participation in M&E and (p=0.000), frequency, and timing (p=0.024) had a significant while tools used in M&E (p=0.459) did have a significant influence on sustainability. This implies that corporate and individual knowledge of the project objectives, targets, and means of measuring project results were still critical in ensuring sustainability is attained. Simple templates of the logical framework should be used for the farmers to understand how inputs are converted into activities, outputs, outcomes, and goals. It is implied that the farmers had little knowledge of Likert items denoting tools in M&E. Therefore, simple and direct Likert items need to be chosen.

DOI 10.20525/ijrbs.v9i6.8801 Crossref citations3 OpenAlex citations
JOURNAL ARTICLE

Examining stakeholder involvement in the evaluation process for program improvement

Edwin Ochieng Okul · Raphael Ondeko Nyonje

International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science · 2020

Read abstract

The results of an evaluation should be used for the envisioned goal and the evaluation process and/or outcomes should be used in practice and decision making. This article presents research whose objective was to establish the extent to which stakeholder involvement in evaluations impacts the utilization of evaluation findings for program improvement. Guided by the pragmatic paradigm and supported by the Utilization-Focused Evaluation Model and Knowledge Use Theory, the researchers assumed a descriptive and correlational design using mixed methods. The sample size for this study was 232 project staff from Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) in Kisumu Central Sub-County, Kenya. To analyze qualitative data, the open-ended responses from key informant interviews were recorded and coded appropriately for further analysis for themes through content analysis and comparative analysis. Frequencies and percentages were calculated to describe the basic characteristics of the quantitative data. To ensure the validity and reliability of the research instruments, pilot testing was conducted. Cronbach’s alpha at ? = 0.908 was attained as the reliability coefficient of the pre-test instruments. Tests of statistical assumptions were carried out before data analysis to avoid invalidation. A hypothesis was tested at the ? = .05 level of significance and was rejected. The findings demonstrate that there is a significant relationship between stakeholder involvement in evaluations and the utilization of evaluation results. This research, therefore, reinforces literature and helps to understand the ways in which stakeholder involvement in evaluations influences the utilization of evaluation results. It informs the evaluation field of study, fills gaps in the evaluation use literature, and contributes to the appreciation of factors that predict and enhance the utilization of evaluation results

DOI 10.20525/ijrbs.v9i5.8351 Crossref citations5 OpenAlex citations

Selected results

JOURNAL ARTICLE

Enhancing sustainability of donor funded livelihood projects in Kilifi County through effective monitoring and evaluation

Cornel Likale Ndombi · Dorothy Ndunge Kyalo · Angeline Sabina Mulwa

International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science · 2020

Read abstract

Benefactor organizations have greatly funded livelihood projects and programs in Kilifi County. However, these projects grapple with sustainability. Some halt operations instantaneously the funding is withdrawn. The purpose of the study was to investigate the influence of monitoring and evaluation (participation; tools; and timing and frequency) on the sustainability of donor-funded livelihood projects in Kilifi County, Kenya. The descriptive correlational research design was used with a sample of 170 from a population of 295 from three livelihood projects. Seven interviews and three focus group discussions were carried out. Standard deviations, standard error of means, arithmetic means, Pearson’s Product moment correlation, and linear regression were used. The perception of sustainability did not differ significantly with projects, gender, age, and marital status. However, perception differed based on the highest level of education and duration in the project. H0, r=0.458, p=0.000389<0.05 was rejected and concluded that monitoring and evaluation significantly influenced the sustainability of donor-funded livelihood projects. Participation in M&E and (p=0.000), frequency, and timing (p=0.024) had a significant while tools used in M&E (p=0.459) did have a significant influence on sustainability. This implies that corporate and individual knowledge of the project objectives, targets, and means of measuring project results were still critical in ensuring sustainability is attained. Simple templates of the logical framework should be used for the farmers to understand how inputs are converted into activities, outputs, outcomes, and goals. It is implied that the farmers had little knowledge of Likert items denoting tools in M&E. Therefore, simple and direct Likert items need to be chosen.

DOI 10.20525/ijrbs.v9i6.8801 Crossref citations3 OpenAlex citations
JOURNAL ARTICLE

Examining stakeholder involvement in the evaluation process for program improvement

Edwin Ochieng Okul · Raphael Ondeko Nyonje

International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science · 2020

Read abstract

The results of an evaluation should be used for the envisioned goal and the evaluation process and/or outcomes should be used in practice and decision making. This article presents research whose objective was to establish the extent to which stakeholder involvement in evaluations impacts the utilization of evaluation findings for program improvement. Guided by the pragmatic paradigm and supported by the Utilization-Focused Evaluation Model and Knowledge Use Theory, the researchers assumed a descriptive and correlational design using mixed methods. The sample size for this study was 232 project staff from Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) in Kisumu Central Sub-County, Kenya. To analyze qualitative data, the open-ended responses from key informant interviews were recorded and coded appropriately for further analysis for themes through content analysis and comparative analysis. Frequencies and percentages were calculated to describe the basic characteristics of the quantitative data. To ensure the validity and reliability of the research instruments, pilot testing was conducted. Cronbach’s alpha at ? = 0.908 was attained as the reliability coefficient of the pre-test instruments. Tests of statistical assumptions were carried out before data analysis to avoid invalidation. A hypothesis was tested at the ? = .05 level of significance and was rejected. The findings demonstrate that there is a significant relationship between stakeholder involvement in evaluations and the utilization of evaluation results. This research, therefore, reinforces literature and helps to understand the ways in which stakeholder involvement in evaluations influences the utilization of evaluation results. It informs the evaluation field of study, fills gaps in the evaluation use literature, and contributes to the appreciation of factors that predict and enhance the utilization of evaluation results

DOI 10.20525/ijrbs.v9i5.8351 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 →