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: 1 / 1 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 — 21 Oct 2026 07:23 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.
1 / 1 with data · 0 missing or unmatched. Percentages use all 1 selected publications.
1 / 1 with data · 0 missing or unmatched. Percentages use all 1 selected publications.
1 / 1 with data · 0 missing or unmatched. Percentages use all 1 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 | 1 | 1 | 1/1 | 1/1 |
| Publication year | Journal / scope | Crossref citations | Publications | Crossref known | OpenAlex known |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026 | All selected publications | 0 | 1 | 1/1 | 1/1 |
| Publication year | Journal / scope | OpenAlex citations | Publications | Crossref known | OpenAlex known |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026 | All selected publications | 0 | 1 | 1/1 | 1/1 |
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 1 / 1 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): 2026-10-21T07:23:05.916131+00:00 — 2026-10-21T07:23:05.916131+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 | 1 | 1/1 |
| 2018 | All selected publications | 0 | 1 | 1/1 |
| 2019 | All selected publications | 0 | 1 | 1/1 |
| 2020 | All selected publications | 0 | 1 | 1/1 |
| 2021 | All selected publications | 0 | 1 | 1/1 |
| 2022 | All selected publications | 0 | 1 | 1/1 |
| 2023 | All selected publications | 0 | 1 | 1/1 |
| 2024 | All selected publications | 0 | 1 | 1/1 |
| 2025 | All selected publications | 0 | 1 | 1/1 |
| 2026 | All selected publications | 0 | 1 | 1/1 |
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 | 1 |
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 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1/1 | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 | 1/1 · 100.0% |
* Percentage among publications with a known citation count.
This scoping review examines the role of Facebook posts and social media content as crucial evidence in crime exposure and investigation within the South African context, exploring the types of crimes documented, digital forensic methodologies, legal admissibility challenges, and ethical considerations. Following the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) framework, a comprehensive literature search was conducted across multiple databases, including SciSpace, Google Scholar, and PubMed, covering publications from 2015 to 2025. The review included peer-reviewed articles, case studies, legal analyses, and policy documents related to social media evidence in criminal investigations, with a specific focus on South African cases and contexts. The review identified 97 relevant sources spanning multiple crime categories where Facebook posts serve as evidence, including murder cases, sexual exploitation, fraud, harassment, and organised crime. Key findings reveal that while social media evidence is increasingly utilised by the South African Police Service (SAPS), significant challenges persist regarding authentication, chain of custody, legal admissibility, and privacy concerns. High-profile cases such as the Thabo Bester investigation and viral crime videos from platforms like Facebook demonstrate both the potential and limitations of social media as evidentiary material. Digital forensic methodologies have evolved to address platform-specific challenges, though resource constraints and training gaps affect implementation in South African law enforcement. Facebook posts have become indispensable tools for crime exposure and investigation in South Africa, serving dual functions as both primary evidence and intelligence sources. However, the evidentiary value is contingent upon proper collection, preservation, authentication, and adherence to legal standards. Recommendations include developing standardised protocols for social media evidence collection, enhancing digital forensic capacity within SAPS, clarifying legal frameworks for admissibility, and balancing investigative needs with privacy rights. Future research should examine the long-term impacts of social media surveillance on community trust and explore technological solutions for verifiable evidence preservation.
This scoping review examines the role of Facebook posts and social media content as crucial evidence in crime exposure and investigation within the South African context, exploring the types of crimes documented, digital forensic methodologies, legal admissibility challenges, and ethical considerations. Following the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) framework, a comprehensive literature search was conducted across multiple databases, including SciSpace, Google Scholar, and PubMed, covering publications from 2015 to 2025. The review included peer-reviewed articles, case studies, legal analyses, and policy documents related to social media evidence in criminal investigations, with a specific focus on South African cases and contexts. The review identified 97 relevant sources spanning multiple crime categories where Facebook posts serve as evidence, including murder cases, sexual exploitation, fraud, harassment, and organised crime. Key findings reveal that while social media evidence is increasingly utilised by the South African Police Service (SAPS), significant challenges persist regarding authentication, chain of custody, legal admissibility, and privacy concerns. High-profile cases such as the Thabo Bester investigation and viral crime videos from platforms like Facebook demonstrate both the potential and limitations of social media as evidentiary material. Digital forensic methodologies have evolved to address platform-specific challenges, though resource constraints and training gaps affect implementation in South African law enforcement. Facebook posts have become indispensable tools for crime exposure and investigation in South Africa, serving dual functions as both primary evidence and intelligence sources. However, the evidentiary value is contingent upon proper collection, preservation, authentication, and adherence to legal standards. Recommendations include developing standardised protocols for social media evidence collection, enhancing digital forensic capacity within SAPS, clarifying legal frameworks for admissibility, and balancing investigative needs with privacy rights. Future research should examine the long-term impacts of social media surveillance on community trust and explore technological solutions for verifiable evidence preservation.
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 |