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 13:00 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | All selected publications | 2 | 2 | 2/2 | 2/2 |
| Publication year | Journal / scope | Crossref citations | Publications | Crossref known | OpenAlex known |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | All selected publications | 1 | 2 | 2/2 | 2/2 |
| Publication year | Journal / scope | OpenAlex citations | Publications | Crossref known | OpenAlex known |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | All selected publications | 1 | 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): 2026-10-21T07:23:03.257419+00:00 — 2026-10-22T13:00:38.223381+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 | 1 | 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 |
|---|---|
| 2025 | 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 Research in Business and Social Science SSBFNET | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2/2 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 50.0 | 2/2 · 100.0% |
* Percentage among publications with a known citation count.
The ongoing digitization of professional interactions has significantly altered how employers evaluate candidates throughout the hiring process, with digital footprints emerging as a crucial factor in recruitment decisions. This integrative literature review investigates the influence of digital footprints on two essential recruitment outcomes: interview invitation rates and perceived cultural fit. Digital footprints, which encompass social media activity, professional profiles, and online interactions, provide employers with valuable insights into a candidate's qualifications, personality traits, and cultural alignment. Research indicates that candidates with well-managed digital profiles, particularly on platforms such as LinkedIn, tend to receive a higher number of interview invitations, whereas adverse online content can negatively impact job prospects. Furthermore, employers are increasingly leveraging digital footprints to gauge cultural fit by analysing online behavior, shared content, and social media interactions to assess alignment with organizational values. However, the reliance on digital footprints raises ethical concerns, including privacy issues, unconscious bias, and discrimination, as employers may unconsciously favour candidates who share similar personal or political views. The review underscores the necessity for standardized ethical guidelines in digital screening practices to ensure fair and unbiased hiring decisions. Additionally, job seekers are encouraged to proactively manage their online presence, curating content that accurately represents their professional identity. Employers should strive to balance efficiency with fairness by implementing transparent digital screening policies to mitigate bias risks. This study contributes to both academic discourse and practical approaches for digital hiring, emphasizing the importance of ethical frameworks and systematic evaluations in the digital recruitment process. Future research should investigate cross-cultural variations in digital screening practices and the implications of artificial intelligence in automating digital footprint assessments. Ensuring fairness and transparency in digital hiring practices will be essential for fostering equitable employment opportunities in the digital era.
This study examines how using information and communication technologies (ICT) affects the performance of Tunisian SMEs in human resources management (HRM). The findings indicate that numerous Tunisian small and medium-sized enterprises struggle to integrate ICT tools into human resource management due to inadequate foundational knowledge about these technologies and a limited understanding?of their functionality. Consequently, they may underperform. As argued by Müller and Voigt (2021), proper utilization of ICT can be achieved through the appropriate?adoption of tools and the continuous development of digital skills within human capital. Jones and Kim (2020) also highlight the significance of this finding, suggesting that investment in tools (e.g., the intranet) not only enhances internal communication but also forges connections between mobile employees, those working from home, and office-based employees.
This study examines how using information and communication technologies (ICT) affects the performance of Tunisian SMEs in human resources management (HRM). The findings indicate that numerous Tunisian small and medium-sized enterprises struggle to integrate ICT tools into human resource management due to inadequate foundational knowledge about these technologies and a limited understanding?of their functionality. Consequently, they may underperform. As argued by Müller and Voigt (2021), proper utilization of ICT can be achieved through the appropriate?adoption of tools and the continuous development of digital skills within human capital. Jones and Kim (2020) also highlight the significance of this finding, suggesting that investment in tools (e.g., the intranet) not only enhances internal communication but also forges connections between mobile employees, those working from home, and office-based employees.
The ongoing digitization of professional interactions has significantly altered how employers evaluate candidates throughout the hiring process, with digital footprints emerging as a crucial factor in recruitment decisions. This integrative literature review investigates the influence of digital footprints on two essential recruitment outcomes: interview invitation rates and perceived cultural fit. Digital footprints, which encompass social media activity, professional profiles, and online interactions, provide employers with valuable insights into a candidate's qualifications, personality traits, and cultural alignment. Research indicates that candidates with well-managed digital profiles, particularly on platforms such as LinkedIn, tend to receive a higher number of interview invitations, whereas adverse online content can negatively impact job prospects. Furthermore, employers are increasingly leveraging digital footprints to gauge cultural fit by analysing online behavior, shared content, and social media interactions to assess alignment with organizational values. However, the reliance on digital footprints raises ethical concerns, including privacy issues, unconscious bias, and discrimination, as employers may unconsciously favour candidates who share similar personal or political views. The review underscores the necessity for standardized ethical guidelines in digital screening practices to ensure fair and unbiased hiring decisions. Additionally, job seekers are encouraged to proactively manage their online presence, curating content that accurately represents their professional identity. Employers should strive to balance efficiency with fairness by implementing transparent digital screening policies to mitigate bias risks. This study contributes to both academic discourse and practical approaches for digital hiring, emphasizing the importance of ethical frameworks and systematic evaluations in the digital recruitment process. Future research should investigate cross-cultural variations in digital screening practices and the implications of artificial intelligence in automating digital footprint assessments. Ensuring fairness and transparency in digital hiring practices will be essential for fostering equitable employment opportunities in the digital era.
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 |