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: 3 / 3 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 07:22 UTC — 22 Oct 2026 12:26 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.
3 / 3 with data · 0 missing or unmatched. Percentages use all 3 selected publications.
3 / 3 with data · 0 missing or unmatched. Percentages use all 3 selected publications.
3 / 3 with data · 0 missing or unmatched. Percentages use all 3 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2022 | All selected publications | 3 | 3 | 3/3 | 3/3 |
| Publication year | Journal / scope | Crossref citations | Publications | Crossref known | OpenAlex known |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2022 | All selected publications | 6 | 3 | 3/3 | 3/3 |
| Publication year | Journal / scope | OpenAlex citations | Publications | Crossref known | OpenAlex known |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2022 | All selected publications | 13 | 3 | 3/3 | 3/3 |
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): 2026-10-21T07:22:43.100221+00:00 — 2026-10-22T12:26:04.584602+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 | 3 | 3/3 |
| 2018 | All selected publications | 0 | 3 | 3/3 |
| 2019 | All selected publications | 0 | 3 | 3/3 |
| 2020 | All selected publications | 0 | 3 | 3/3 |
| 2021 | All selected publications | 0 | 3 | 3/3 |
| 2022 | All selected publications | 2 | 3 | 3/3 |
| 2023 | All selected publications | 1 | 3 | 3/3 |
| 2024 | All selected publications | 4 | 3 | 3/3 |
| 2025 | All selected publications | 6 | 3 | 3/3 |
| 2026 | All selected publications | 0 | 3 | 3/3 |
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 ↗
Publications by publication year. 2026 is an incomplete year.
| Period | Publications |
|---|---|
| 2022 | 3 |
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 | 3 | 6 | 13 | 3/3 | 2.0 | 1 | 66.7 | 3/3 · 100.0% |
* Percentage among publications with a known citation count.
Undoubtedly, stock theft increased in most South African provinces during the lockdown period, thus, the objectives of this study were to provide a systematic discourse using news aggregators and seminal authors on this subject to showcase stock theft realities, and to establish the contributory factors thereof. The non-empirical research design: Systematic review methodology was used to analyse grey literature and primary research studies peer-reviewed and published, restricted from 2019-2020, as the Coronavirus disease-2019 (Covid-19) pandemic swept South Africa by an elusive heavy storm, with 1998-2022 directed studies on this scourge, however, none sequential preference was adopted. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and Critical Appraisal Skill Programme (CASP) were employed to ensure the trustworthiness of the findings of this study. This study establishes that the current nature of policing in South Africa is regarded as one of the notable root causes of the stock theft problem and this crime will continue to hike during the lockdown and post-lockdown periods if concerted steps are not taken urgently by the top echelons of the South African Police Service (SAPS), their actions against this practice is currently compromised or emasculated, and the consequences are clear to see. This study recommends that to effectively respond to the identified study themes; an active discourse relating to the contributory of stock theft during lockdown should be prioritised by the South African government. This multi-agency approach should include reporting of this crime, brand-marking and tattooing of livestock, embracing technological advancements to combat it effectively.
Cable theft is a severe problem affecting South Africa, the loss of signal due to theft causes trains and all other forms of transportation to derail or collide, and many innocent lives and livelihoods are lost and this also affects the free flow of traffic. It disrupts the movement of people, goods and costs of the South African economy. The inability of law enforcement agencies to combat cable theft is a significant problem in South Africa and more should be done to counteract this problem as to a greater extent cases of cable theft are reported daily. This article focused on the impact of cable theft on the free flow of traffic in South Africa. The article is based on a qualitatively rooted methodology including a wide range of primary and secondary sources. The article further draws on the findings from the world on the impact of cable theft on the free flow of traffic and formulate steps to counteract the problem. The research-based key steps lead to the prevention of cable theft in South Africa. The first step related to capacitating law enforcement agencies with resources to combat cable theft; strengthening partnerships between law enforcement agencies, the business community, and all other significant stakeholders; Increasing the visibility of traffic officials to ensure the free flow of traffic.
It is inevitable and regrettable that inmates continue to commit crimes while serving their sentences. This is rather bizarre because prisons are naturally confined spaces that leave one with little or no liberty to do what one would normally do outside of prison, let alone committing crime. This raises questions concerning the pragmatic position of scientific theories that are not only formulated to explain, predict, and understand phenomena but are also seen as a bedrock of scientific research. It would not be far-fetched to expect any research paper to include a section on a theoretical framework that is essentially a representation of some level of the application of particular scholarly theories. However, not much has been documented about the usefulness of scientific theories that normally form part of research papers. This analytic paper evaluated the usefulness of scholarly theories in the criminal justice system field, specifically punishment theories, by reflecting on the crimes committed by inmates while serving their time. This study found that retribution, deterrence, and incapacitation are not useful theories in terms of theoretical scope. The incapacitation theory is not useful in terms of heuristic value, and deterrence, and rehabilitation are not useful in terms of validity.
It is inevitable and regrettable that inmates continue to commit crimes while serving their sentences. This is rather bizarre because prisons are naturally confined spaces that leave one with little or no liberty to do what one would normally do outside of prison, let alone committing crime. This raises questions concerning the pragmatic position of scientific theories that are not only formulated to explain, predict, and understand phenomena but are also seen as a bedrock of scientific research. It would not be far-fetched to expect any research paper to include a section on a theoretical framework that is essentially a representation of some level of the application of particular scholarly theories. However, not much has been documented about the usefulness of scientific theories that normally form part of research papers. This analytic paper evaluated the usefulness of scholarly theories in the criminal justice system field, specifically punishment theories, by reflecting on the crimes committed by inmates while serving their time. This study found that retribution, deterrence, and incapacitation are not useful theories in terms of theoretical scope. The incapacitation theory is not useful in terms of heuristic value, and deterrence, and rehabilitation are not useful in terms of validity.
Cable theft is a severe problem affecting South Africa, the loss of signal due to theft causes trains and all other forms of transportation to derail or collide, and many innocent lives and livelihoods are lost and this also affects the free flow of traffic. It disrupts the movement of people, goods and costs of the South African economy. The inability of law enforcement agencies to combat cable theft is a significant problem in South Africa and more should be done to counteract this problem as to a greater extent cases of cable theft are reported daily. This article focused on the impact of cable theft on the free flow of traffic in South Africa. The article is based on a qualitatively rooted methodology including a wide range of primary and secondary sources. The article further draws on the findings from the world on the impact of cable theft on the free flow of traffic and formulate steps to counteract the problem. The research-based key steps lead to the prevention of cable theft in South Africa. The first step related to capacitating law enforcement agencies with resources to combat cable theft; strengthening partnerships between law enforcement agencies, the business community, and all other significant stakeholders; Increasing the visibility of traffic officials to ensure the free flow of traffic.
Undoubtedly, stock theft increased in most South African provinces during the lockdown period, thus, the objectives of this study were to provide a systematic discourse using news aggregators and seminal authors on this subject to showcase stock theft realities, and to establish the contributory factors thereof. The non-empirical research design: Systematic review methodology was used to analyse grey literature and primary research studies peer-reviewed and published, restricted from 2019-2020, as the Coronavirus disease-2019 (Covid-19) pandemic swept South Africa by an elusive heavy storm, with 1998-2022 directed studies on this scourge, however, none sequential preference was adopted. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and Critical Appraisal Skill Programme (CASP) were employed to ensure the trustworthiness of the findings of this study. This study establishes that the current nature of policing in South Africa is regarded as one of the notable root causes of the stock theft problem and this crime will continue to hike during the lockdown and post-lockdown periods if concerted steps are not taken urgently by the top echelons of the South African Police Service (SAPS), their actions against this practice is currently compromised or emasculated, and the consequences are clear to see. This study recommends that to effectively respond to the identified study themes; an active discourse relating to the contributory of stock theft during lockdown should be prioritised by the South African government. This multi-agency approach should include reporting of this crime, brand-marking and tattooing of livestock, embracing technological advancements to combat it effectively.
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 |