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% · 3/3 recordsLast OpenAlex observation 22 Oct 2026, 01:37 UTC
PUBLICATIONS3In the selected collection
CROSSREF CITATIONS12/3 with known counts
OPENALEX CITATIONS13/3 with known counts
OPENALEX MEAN0.33Per article with a known count
Explore articles 3 →
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 Johannesburg1University of Kigali12/3 records with data

Countries

Rwanda1South Africa12/3 records with data

Primary topics

Evaluation and Performance Assessment33/3 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: 3/3 articles. Latest history observation: 2026-10-22T01:37:11.618900+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 Finance & Banking StudiesInternational 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
3 MATCHING PUBLICATIONSExplore results →Export CSV ↓
INDEXED PUBLICATIONS3
CROSSREF CITATIONS1
CROSSREF · CITED PUBLICATIONS50.0%
CROSSREF · MEAN CITATIONS0.5

Crossref citation coverage: 2 / 3 publications (66.7%). 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 CITATIONS1
DOI MATCH COVERAGE100.0%3 / 3 publications
MEAN · KNOWN COUNTS ONLY0.333 known · 0 unknown
MEDIAN · KNOWN COUNTS ONLY0

Observation range: 21 Oct 2026 07:23 UTC — 22 Oct 2026 01:37 UTC. Missing matches are not zero citations. Previous observations may remain if a refresh fails or a DOI no longer matches.

OpenAlex citation distributionNo citations21–516–20021+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 / 3 with data · 1 missing or unmatched. Percentages use all 3 selected publications.

Countries

2 / 3 with data · 1 missing or unmatched. Percentages use all 3 selected publications.

Primary topics

3 / 3 with data · 0 missing or unmatched. Percentages use all 3 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 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): 2026-10-21T07:23:04.045447+00:00 — 2026-10-22T01:37:11.618900+00:00. Older observations may be retained after failed or incomplete refreshes.

OpenAlex · Citations received by year

10.50 2017 · All selected publications · OpenAlex · Citations received by year: 0 · Annual history coverage 3/32018 · All selected publications · OpenAlex · Citations received by year: 0 · Annual history coverage 3/32019 · All selected publications · OpenAlex · Citations received by year: 0 · Annual history coverage 3/32020 · All selected publications · OpenAlex · Citations received by year: 0 · Annual history coverage 3/32021 · All selected publications · OpenAlex · Citations received by year: 0 · Annual history coverage 3/32022 · All selected publications · OpenAlex · Citations received by year: 0 · Annual history coverage 3/32023 · All selected publications · OpenAlex · Citations received by year: 0 · Annual history coverage 3/32024 · All selected publications · OpenAlex · Citations received by year: 0 · Annual history coverage 3/32025 · All selected publications · OpenAlex · Citations received by year: 0 · Annual history coverage 3/32026 · All selected publications · OpenAlex · Citations received by year: 1 · Annual history coverage 3/3 2017201820192020202120222023202420252026
View openalex · citations received by year data & coverage
Citation yearJournal / scopeOpenAlex · Citations received by yearPublicationsAnnual history known
2017All selected publications033/3
2018All selected publications033/3
2019All selected publications033/3
2020All selected publications033/3
2021All selected publications033/3
2022All selected publications033/3
2023All selected publications033/3
2024All selected publications033/3
2025All selected publications033/3
2026All selected publications133/3

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 ↗

Crossref citation distribution

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

Mean0.5
Median0.5
No citations11–516–20021+0Unknown1

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 Finance & Banking Studies
SSBFNET
2112/21.01100.01/2 · 50.0%
International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science
SSBFNET
1001/10.000.01/1 · 100.0%

* Percentage among publications with a known citation count.

Explore publications

View all 3 →

Most cited · Crossref

JOURNAL ARTICLE

Enhancing Education Project Outcomes and the Role of Monitoring and Evaluation

Umurerwa Nadia · Amolo Elvis Juma Amolo

International Journal of Finance & Banking Studies · 2025

Read abstract

Effective implementation of education projects is crucial for sustainable development, yet many initiatives in developing regions like Musanze District, Rwanda, face challenges due to inadequate monitoring and evaluation (M&E) practices. This study had the following specific objectives; To assess the influence of M&E planning, M&E budget, M&E capacity building and, M&E data utilization on implementation of education projects in Musanze District. The study was grounded on Evidence-Based Practice (EBP) Theory. The study used descriptive survey and correlational research designs. Questionnaires, interviews, and document analysis were used to collect data from a sample of 156 respondents out of a target population of 658, including school head teachers and teachers. The pilot study with 16 respondents who represent 10% of the sample size was used to enhance the validity and reliability of the research. Validity was confirmed through expert evaluation, with index of 0.80 while Reliability established using the split-half technique achieving a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of 0.80, demonstrating the instruments' consistency and appropriateness for data collection.  The four hypotheses were tested at the ? = 0.05 level of significance, and the results were as follows: M&E Planning (P = 0.000 < 0.05), M&E Budgeting (P = 0.000 < 0.05), M&E Capacity Building (P = 0.000 < 0.05) and M&E Data Utilization (P=0.000<0.05) does not significantly influence the implementation of education projects were rejected. In conclusion, the study found that all four practices of Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) M&E Planning, M&E Budgeting, M&E Capacity Building, and M&E Data Utilization have a significant influence on the implementation of education projects. The study recommends that to improve education projects in Rwanda, stakeholders should prioritize comprehensive M&E planning processes with clear objectives and stakeholder participation. Transparent budgeting with robust accountability systems, as well as active community engagement throughout project stages, M&E capacity-building initiatives through regular training sessions and workshops, ensure efficient resource utilization with transparent allocation frameworks. The investigation of the long-term effects of Monitoring and Assessment capacity-building on project sustainability should also be followed by further researchers on the regional differences in implementation effectiveness and on the effects of digital tools and data analytics in promoting high-quality practices in M&E for better outcomes.

DOI 10.20525/ijfbs.v14i1.39651 Crossref citations1 OpenAlex citations
JOURNAL ARTICLE

Evidence ignored? Unpacking barriers to evaluation use in the city of Tshwane’s indigent programme exit strategy

Lesedi Matlala · Diniko Piet Setwaba

International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science · 2025

Read abstract

Evaluation systems are slowly making inroads in South African municipalities, particularly in the metros, yet their effective utilisation remains uneven across service delivery programmes. This study investigates the barriers affecting the uptake of evaluation in implementing the Indigent Programme Exit Strategy within the City of Tshwane (CoT) Metropolitan Municipality. Despite the strategic intent of the exit strategy to reduce long-term dependency and promote self-sufficiency among beneficiaries, the study finds that evaluation evidence is rarely used to inform decisions related to the strategy's design, implementation, or review. Instead, reliance is placed on administrative reporting and compliance-driven monitoring data, which limits learning, adaptation, and accountability. Using a qualitative case study approach grounded in institutional and systems theory, the study draws on semi-structured interviews and document analysis to identify key barriers, including weak political incentives for evaluation use, limited integration of evaluation processes into decision-making cycles, and inadequate feedback loops between evaluators, implementers, and policymakers. The findings underscore that the challenge is not the absence of M&E systems but rather the underutilisation of evaluation evidence to inform programmatic change. The article concludes by offering context-sensitive recommendations for enhancing evaluation uptake within municipal exit strategies and related interventions, contributing broader lessons for strengthening evidence use in local governance.

DOI 10.20525/ijrbs.v14i8.43440 Crossref citations0 OpenAlex citations
JOURNAL ARTICLE

Project Monitoring and Evaluation Practices and Performance of Capacity Development for ICT in Education Project 

Twumvirimana, Etienne · Amolo, Amolo Elvis Juma

International Journal of Finance & Banking Studies · 2025

Read abstract

This study investigated the effect of project monitoring and evaluation (M&E) practices on the performance of the Capacity Development for ICT in Education (CADIE) project in Gicumbi District, Rwanda. The study specifically attempted to examine the effect of M&E planning, M&E tools, M&E digitization, and M&E budget on performance of the CADIE project in Gicumbi District, Rwanda. It was guided by the Technology Acceptance Theory, Results-Based Management (RBM) Theory, and Capacity Development Theory. A descriptive research design combining both quantitative and qualitative approaches was employed. The target population consisted of 268 stakeholders, Using Yamane’s formula, a sample of 160 respondents was drawn using stratified and simple random sampling techniques to ensure fair representation. Data was collected through questionnaires, semi-structured interviews, and documentary reviews. Quantitative data were analyzed using SPSS version 23 through descriptive and inferential statistics, while qualitative data were analyzed thematically. Descriptive statistics revealed that respondents generally agreed that M&E practices positively influenced project performance. The regression model showed R = 0.809 and R² = 0.655, indicating that 65.5% of the variation in project performance was explained by M&E planning, M&E tools, M&E digitalization, and M&E budgeting. The study concluded that effective monitoring and evaluation practices were vital for the successful performance of ICT-based education projects. A structured M&E plan provided clear direction, digitalization improved real-time monitoring and reporting, and proper budgeting ensured accountability and efficient resource utilization.

DOI 10.20525/ijfbs.v14i4.4754N/A Crossref citations0 OpenAlex citations

Selected results

JOURNAL ARTICLE

Project Monitoring and Evaluation Practices and Performance of Capacity Development for ICT in Education Project 

Twumvirimana, Etienne · Amolo, Amolo Elvis Juma

International Journal of Finance & Banking Studies · 2025

Read abstract

This study investigated the effect of project monitoring and evaluation (M&E) practices on the performance of the Capacity Development for ICT in Education (CADIE) project in Gicumbi District, Rwanda. The study specifically attempted to examine the effect of M&E planning, M&E tools, M&E digitization, and M&E budget on performance of the CADIE project in Gicumbi District, Rwanda. It was guided by the Technology Acceptance Theory, Results-Based Management (RBM) Theory, and Capacity Development Theory. A descriptive research design combining both quantitative and qualitative approaches was employed. The target population consisted of 268 stakeholders, Using Yamane’s formula, a sample of 160 respondents was drawn using stratified and simple random sampling techniques to ensure fair representation. Data was collected through questionnaires, semi-structured interviews, and documentary reviews. Quantitative data were analyzed using SPSS version 23 through descriptive and inferential statistics, while qualitative data were analyzed thematically. Descriptive statistics revealed that respondents generally agreed that M&E practices positively influenced project performance. The regression model showed R = 0.809 and R² = 0.655, indicating that 65.5% of the variation in project performance was explained by M&E planning, M&E tools, M&E digitalization, and M&E budgeting. The study concluded that effective monitoring and evaluation practices were vital for the successful performance of ICT-based education projects. A structured M&E plan provided clear direction, digitalization improved real-time monitoring and reporting, and proper budgeting ensured accountability and efficient resource utilization.

DOI 10.20525/ijfbs.v14i4.4754N/A Crossref citations0 OpenAlex citations
JOURNAL ARTICLE

Evidence ignored? Unpacking barriers to evaluation use in the city of Tshwane’s indigent programme exit strategy

Lesedi Matlala · Diniko Piet Setwaba

International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science · 2025

Read abstract

Evaluation systems are slowly making inroads in South African municipalities, particularly in the metros, yet their effective utilisation remains uneven across service delivery programmes. This study investigates the barriers affecting the uptake of evaluation in implementing the Indigent Programme Exit Strategy within the City of Tshwane (CoT) Metropolitan Municipality. Despite the strategic intent of the exit strategy to reduce long-term dependency and promote self-sufficiency among beneficiaries, the study finds that evaluation evidence is rarely used to inform decisions related to the strategy's design, implementation, or review. Instead, reliance is placed on administrative reporting and compliance-driven monitoring data, which limits learning, adaptation, and accountability. Using a qualitative case study approach grounded in institutional and systems theory, the study draws on semi-structured interviews and document analysis to identify key barriers, including weak political incentives for evaluation use, limited integration of evaluation processes into decision-making cycles, and inadequate feedback loops between evaluators, implementers, and policymakers. The findings underscore that the challenge is not the absence of M&E systems but rather the underutilisation of evaluation evidence to inform programmatic change. The article concludes by offering context-sensitive recommendations for enhancing evaluation uptake within municipal exit strategies and related interventions, contributing broader lessons for strengthening evidence use in local governance.

DOI 10.20525/ijrbs.v14i8.43440 Crossref citations0 OpenAlex citations
JOURNAL ARTICLE

Enhancing Education Project Outcomes and the Role of Monitoring and Evaluation

Umurerwa Nadia · Amolo Elvis Juma Amolo

International Journal of Finance & Banking Studies · 2025

Read abstract

Effective implementation of education projects is crucial for sustainable development, yet many initiatives in developing regions like Musanze District, Rwanda, face challenges due to inadequate monitoring and evaluation (M&E) practices. This study had the following specific objectives; To assess the influence of M&E planning, M&E budget, M&E capacity building and, M&E data utilization on implementation of education projects in Musanze District. The study was grounded on Evidence-Based Practice (EBP) Theory. The study used descriptive survey and correlational research designs. Questionnaires, interviews, and document analysis were used to collect data from a sample of 156 respondents out of a target population of 658, including school head teachers and teachers. The pilot study with 16 respondents who represent 10% of the sample size was used to enhance the validity and reliability of the research. Validity was confirmed through expert evaluation, with index of 0.80 while Reliability established using the split-half technique achieving a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of 0.80, demonstrating the instruments' consistency and appropriateness for data collection.  The four hypotheses were tested at the ? = 0.05 level of significance, and the results were as follows: M&E Planning (P = 0.000 < 0.05), M&E Budgeting (P = 0.000 < 0.05), M&E Capacity Building (P = 0.000 < 0.05) and M&E Data Utilization (P=0.000<0.05) does not significantly influence the implementation of education projects were rejected. In conclusion, the study found that all four practices of Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) M&E Planning, M&E Budgeting, M&E Capacity Building, and M&E Data Utilization have a significant influence on the implementation of education projects. The study recommends that to improve education projects in Rwanda, stakeholders should prioritize comprehensive M&E planning processes with clear objectives and stakeholder participation. Transparent budgeting with robust accountability systems, as well as active community engagement throughout project stages, M&E capacity-building initiatives through regular training sessions and workshops, ensure efficient resource utilization with transparent allocation frameworks. The investigation of the long-term effects of Monitoring and Assessment capacity-building on project sustainability should also be followed by further researchers on the regional differences in implementation effectiveness and on the effects of digital tools and data analytics in promoting high-quality practices in M&E for better outcomes.

DOI 10.20525/ijfbs.v14i1.39651 Crossref citations1 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 19:56 UTC · ijfbscomplete · ijfbs · 20 Oct 2026 19:55 UTC
openalex-enrichment21 Oct 2026 07:23 UTC · ijrbscomplete · ijrbs · 21 Oct 2026 07:22 UTC
Full import history & methodology →