Comparing Dual Time-Point Retrieval of Scopus Data on Malaysian University Research

Comparing Dual Time-Point Retrieval of Scopus Data on Malaysian University Research

¹Ina Suryani, ²Khairul Hisham Jamaluddin, ³Norlizawati Ghazali, ⁴Wan Safuraa Wan Osman, ⁴Masturah Sabri, ⁴Noor Farahhein

¹Faculty of Business and Communication, Centre of Excellence for Unmanned Aerial Vehicle, Faculty of Business and Communication, University Malaysia Perlis, Malaysia

²Faculty of Business and Communication,, University Malaysia Perlis, Malaysia

³Universiti Teknologi MARA Cawangan Perlis, Malaysia

⁴Faculty of Business and Communication,, University Malaysia Perlis, Malaysia

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.914MG008

Received: 08 January 2025; Accepted: 11 January 2025; Published: 12 February 2025

ABSTRACT

Aims: This paper aims to contribute to pedagogical use of computational technologies by educators at post graduate level by investigating on the consistency of Scopus data generated at different retrieval time. “Dual time point retrieval” refers to the process of retrieving the same dataset from a database at two different times to analyze consistency or changes. The investigation compares dual time point retrieval of Scopus publication published before 2011. The retrieved data were both on publication published before 2011, but retrieved at two different times. The first retrieval was in 2011 and the second retrieval was in 2024. Note that both datasets are of the same parameter as the aim of this study is to investigate on the consistency of data generated at different retrieval time.

Study Design:  The study design is bibliometric.

Place and Duration of Study: The study involves Scopus publication by the Malaysian private and the public universities published before 2011,

Methodology: The first set of data on publication published prior to 2011 data was retrieved in real time back in 2011 and the second set of data on publication published prior to 2011 was retrieved again in 2024. The two sets of data retrieved at dual time point were compared for similarities the differences in the dual time retrieval. In this study the time lapse of the dual time retrieval is more than a decade.  The study employed a query search on the Malaysian universities affiliation using Scopus database.

Results: Findings shows that different retrieval time do generate different results. The differences are contributed to factors like change in spelling of the university name, exclusion of journals from the database, new inclusion of journals in the database, change of affiliation by the authors, and consolidation of accounts by the universities. The findings bring forth steps for periodic affiliation and author profile consolidation in Scopus, and merging of multiple author profiles on the institutional profiles.

Conclusion: The study implicates that retrieval point of time must be considered in bibliometric study. Higher education researchers, Librarians, and University Research Management Centers should consider for periodic affiliation and author profiles consolidation in the various research database. This is to ensure a more accurate representation of their research output and metrics as such actions improve the visibility and impact of authors and institution.

Keywords: Post-graduate, research writing, publication, dataset, retrieval

INTRODUCTION

For decades, universities have emphasized research publications in performance evaluations. Over time, the pressure has grown, shifting focus from merely publishing to publishing in high-quality journals, often ranked by publication categories and indexes (Ali et al., 2023). Journal indexing is now a key factor in grant outcomes, postgraduate requirements, annual evaluations, and promotion appraisals. Globally, databases like Scopus and Web of Science (WoS) are preferred (Yubo et al., 2023). While these indexed journals enhance visibility, credibility, and accessibility, there are concerns about the consistency of data retrieved over time. Educators at the postgraduate level should integrate teachings on these indexing systems and how to manage research profiles to ensure accurate representation in evaluations and academic progress.

It is known that the Scopus database is dynamic, and retrieving information at different times may yield different results. However, the extent of these differences when data is retrieved at different times remains unclear. While many studies acknowledge that results can vary with different retrieval times (Ina et. Al, 2015), they typically focus on differences in publication productivity rather than differences due to timing-related data retrieval. It is important to explore why these discrepancies occur to improve data accuracy. Understanding these variations can help universities and researchers take necessary measures to prevent data inconsistencies. Educators at the postgraduate level should teach students about these potential variations and guide them in maintaining accurate records across research databases (Williams & Woods, 2024). This will ensure that publications are properly accounted for in reports, appraisals, and academic assessments, contributing to more reliable evaluations (Aksnes, Piro, & Fossum, 2023).

“Dual time point retrieval” refers to retrieving the same dataset using the same query from a database at two different times to analyse consistency or changes. For example, in bibliometric research, citation data from Scopus for articles published before 2011 might be retrieved once in 2011 and again in 2024. Even though the queries are identical, differences may arise due to database updates, corrections, or retractions over time (Ortega, & Delgado-Quirós, 2024). This method assesses data stability and how time affects the accuracy and completeness of datasets. Stability is crucial for universities and academics, as many rely on Scopus for performance measures. In this study, Scopus data on publications before 2011 were first retrieved in 2011 and then again in 2024, thirteen years later. Since Scopus expanded significantly from 2010 to 2024, adding millions of records across various disciplines, these expansions raise questions about the consistency of the retrieved data over time.

Scopus Database

Since 2010, Scopus has expanded significantly, now offering over 90 million records. It collaborates with 7,000 publishers in 105 countries, indexing content from 27,950 active peer-reviewed journals. The platform includes 20.54 million open access articles and 6,126 open access journals, with substantial growth in 2022 (Feldner, 2023). This expansion included not only recent publications but also a more extensive range of older academic works, making Scopus a more comprehensive resource for researchers.

Scopus has also included open access materials during this period. The database expanded its indexing to include a wide range of open access items, such as gold, hybrid gold, green, and bronze open access publications (McCullough,2022). Inclusion of open access has improved the accessibility of academic content, allowing researchers and the public to access a broader array of scholarly work without the barriers of traditional paywalls. The inclusion of open access materials has been crucial in promoting the visibility and dissemination of research, particularly in fields where open access is increasingly becoming the norm.

Additionally, Scopus integrated more robust technological and quality control measures to maintain the reliability and user experience of the database. The introduction of advanced search algorithms, artificial intelligence, and a more intuitive user interface has made navigating the database more efficient and effective. Scopus also increased its focus on quality control to address the growing concern of predatory publishing and fake articles, ensuring the integrity of the database. Many journals have been delisted from the database. The rise of transformative agreements, which shifted from subscription-based access to open access publishing, also played a significant role in how journals are indexed and accessed, further enhancing Scopus’s status as a leading academic resource.

However, Scopus data consistency over time can be affected by continuous updates to the database, changes in journal indexing, and modifications to search algorithms. These factors can result in inconsistencies when retrieving data at different times, particularly over a span of 10 years. For instance, continuous updates mean that the data retrieved today may differ from what was retrieved a decade ago due to newly indexed publications, corrections, and retractions. Additionally, changes in journal inclusion or exclusion from the database can cause shifts in which documents are accessible at any given time, further contributing to data variability.

These inconsistencies can have significant consequences. Inconsistent data can lead to inaccurate research impact assessments, potentially misrepresenting the influence of a researcher or institution over time. This variability can also complicate benchmarking and comparisons, leading to incorrect conclusions about growth or decline in research activity (Meho & Akl, 2024). Furthermore, inconsistencies can introduce bias in trend analysis, misleading stakeholders who rely on these trends for decision-making, including policymakers and funding bodies (Suryani et.al, 2024). Thus, the reliability of long-term data analysis is compromised, affecting the overall credibility of research evaluations.

Taking heed from these problems, this paper aims to investigate on the consistency of Scopus data generated at different retrieval time. The investigation compares dual time point retrieval of Scopus publication published before 2011. The retrieved data were both on publication published before 2011, but retrieved at two different times. The first retrieval was in 2011 and the second retrieval was in 2024. Note that both set of data were on publication published before 2011 as the aim of this study is on the consistency of data with the same parameter but generated at different retrieval time.

METHODOLOGY

Bakri and Willet (2011), pointed out that research quality has traditionally been assessed by means of expert review which is similar to evaluation procedure for refereed journal articles and grant applications and this procedure is “costly in terms of the time of the subject experts”. They further added that bibliometric indicators can be use as surrogate for peer review. This study uses some of the bibliometric procedures in describing the quantity of the research publications produce by the Malaysian universities in Scopus. This study uses bibliometric research design involving data in Scopus database for publication by the Malaysian private and the public universities.

This paper compares the data of Scopus publication published before 2011, retrieved at two different times. The specific university institutions involved in the study are listed in Table 1

Table 1: Specific university institutions involved in the study

The first set of data is retrieved in 2011 and the second set of data on the same parameter is retrieved again in 2024. While many study retrieve data to compare productivity over the years, this paper is not aimed to measure productivity. This paper is aimed to identify the discrepancy of the same data over time lapse. The comparison on these two sets of data shows the differences resulted when the same data is retrieved  after a decade of time.

This study uses some of the bibliometric procedures in describing the quantity of the research publications produce by the Malaysian universities in Scopus. This study began with obtaining the list of private and public universities from the MoHE website. MoHE website listed 20 public universities and 25 private universities (MOHE, 2010). Next, the numbers of SCOPUS publication by each of the 45 universities were retrieved from the SCOPUS database system. This was obtained using the affiliation search function and the spellings used were as on the MOHE website. The following section justifies SCOPUS as the chosen database.

The affiliation search was done in August 2011 and the data remains true to the date of retrieval. It is important to understand that the Scopus database is versatile and accessing the information at a different time may derive a different set of data. The query made also exclude some university branches for example, the search for Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia exclude both Kuala Lumpur Hospital and the Hospital Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia in  Cheras. The same was applied for the search on Universiti Sains Malaysia and Universiti Malaya where by the search excluded the Hospital Universiti Sains Malaysia and Hospital Universiti Malaya. As the query was done using spelling as prescribed on MoHE website the papers that were published using other spelling than those prescribed were not included. However, an exception was made on the spelling of University of Malaya (retrieved March 2012) and Universiti Malaya whereby, data was collected from both spellings.

At this point, the number of publications consists of various documents such as articles, conference paper, review, article, short summary, conference review, editorial review and even notes. The search then was narrowed down further to articles only. The number obtained included the numbers of articles in various fields. The total of publication by each university on the database were traced back to year 1949 up to August 2011. After that the numbers of publications were tabulated according the affiliation and simple analysis was done using average and percentage. Both data were for publications prior to 2011. The data retrieval was done in 2011 and in 2024.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Table 2 displays the number of publications retrieved from Scopus from Malaysian public universities in two different retrieval times.  Both data were for publications prior to 2011. The first retrieval is from 2011 and the second is retrieved in 2024.

Table 2. Scopus publications prior to 2011 by Malaysian public universities

The highest difference in increment for Scopus publication is with Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM). Retrieval in 2011 found 8477 publications and when retrieved in 2024, 9092 publications were found. Another high increase in the retrieval number is with Universiti Islam Antarabangsa (UIAM). Scopus showed 1861 publications when retrieved in 2011, and retrieval in in 2024 brings 2069 publications indicating an increase of 208 publications. Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka (UTeM) indicated an increment of 200 publications with 360 for 2011 retrieval and 560 when retrieved in 2024.

On the lower end of the table are three universities with the highest decrease when compared between the retrieval times of 2011 and 2024. Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM) saw the biggest drop of 1613 publications. USM recorded a total of 10966 Scopus publications when the data was retrieved in 2011. However, 2024 retrieval time on revealed only 9353 publications. Meanwhile, Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM) whose publication on Scopus numbered at 10148 in 2011 indicated a displacement of  534 publications. Data retrieved in 2024 displayed only 9614 publications. Finally, in 2011 Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM) listed 5071 Scopus articles. In 2024, data for UTM only showed 4606 publications, revealing a drop in 465 publications. Another major drop is with Universiti Malaya (UM*). In 2011 there were 488 Scopus publications from Universiti Malaya and 15201 from University of Malaya. However, according to a more recent count, there are only 14818 publications from Universiti Malaya. Such difference indicates a displacement of 383 publications in Scopus for Universiti Malaya.

Table 2. Scopus publications prior to 2011 by Malaysian private universities

Table 2 shows the number of Scopus publications prior to 2011, retrieved from private universities in Malaysia in 2011 and in 2024. The table also reveals a huge variation in the number of publications published from each private university in the 13 years. This table displays Scopus publications from 14 Malaysian private universities. There are an additional 11 private universities with no records of Scopus publications.

Multimedia University (MMU) Cyberjaya in the 2011 retrieval time registered a number of 2881 Scopus publications. When retrieved in 2024, Scopus shows 3289 publications indicating 408 additions to the data. The second increment of data is with INTI International University (INTI). INTI had no Scopus publications recorded in 2011 but when the data is recalled in 2024, 84 publications were found. University of Kuala Lumpur (UniKL) had 142 Scopus publications recorded in 2011 and when the same data is retrieved in 2024, there was an increase 82 publications, bringing the total to 224 publications.

On the other side of the table, Universiti Teknologi Petronas (UTP) displayed 1352 Scopus publications in 2011. But in 2024, Scopus recalls only 1170 publications for UTP indicating a displacement of 182 publications. IMU University (formerly known as International Medical University) showed a number of 617 publications in Scopus in 2011. In 2024, there are only 514 publications to IMU’s name in Scopus bringing the loss to 103 publications. Asian Institute of Medicine, Science and Technology (AIMST) revealed 235 Scopus publications in 2011 but the 2024 retrieval showed only 146 publications indicating a loss of 89 publications. Even though the number seem small, the loss is almost 40 percent to the original data.

Table 3. Top five gainers and drops in percentage

Table 3 shows the top five of percentage gainers and five most percentage  losses.  The top three gainers increased more than 80%, with UTeM gaining 55%. UKM which can be literally translated to Malaysia National University, gained 615 publications and MMU gained 408 publications. Even though the numbers are big, their percentages are smaller because their starting number were bigger to begin with. The most loses are Universiti Malaysia Kelantan, UCSI University, and Universiti Pertahanan Nasional which are 43%, 37.39%, 37.7% respectively. Even though the differences in number of publications are all in the past, it is the present that matters. Well, this decline does affect the accumulative productivity of the university. If the benchmark for the university is done this year, the accumulative number is reduced substantially with the reduction of 2011 data.This in turn, affects the number of citations gained by the universities, which also affects the h-index and other metrics. Unresolved issues may affect the metrics in the coming years.

Findings shows that retrieval time do generate different results. The different results are contributed to several factors like change in spelling of the university name, exclusion of journals from the database, new inclusion of journals in the database, change of affiliation by the authors, consolidation of accounts by the universities. Implication of the findings includes on the institutional, infoscience officers and research authors which includes steps for periodic affiliation and author profile consolidation in Scopus, and merging of multiple author profiles

Changes in authors’ affiliations as they move to new workplaces can significantly impact the number of publications retrieved in databases like Scopus(Finocchi i et.al,2023). When an author changes their affiliation, the updated information is often reflected in the database’s author profiles. This means that past publications may be re-attributed to the new affiliation, leading to discrepancies when comparing historical data retrieved at different times. For example, if an author published several papers under one institution but later changed their affiliation, subsequent database searches might reflect this new affiliation even in past publications. As a result, the number of publications retrieved for a specific institution could fluctuate, depending on when the data is accessed.

Scopus and similar databases continuously update author profiles to reflect current affiliations. These updates can cause significant shifts in publication counts over time, as past publications are reassigned to the author’s current institution. This reattribution is especially impactful in longitudinal studies where the goal is to assess the research output of specific institutions over time (Kwiek & Roszka, 2024). Such inconsistencies can lead to misleading conclusions, as the same publication might be counted under different institutions in different retrievals. Additionally, as databases improve their disambiguation algorithms, they may correct earlier misattributions of publications, further contributing to variations in search results across different periods.

Moreover, databases like Scopus undergo numerous updates and corrections over the years, including the rectification of previous errors in author affiliations and the addition of missing information. These updates are essential for maintaining the accuracy and integrity of the database but can also introduce variations in the data retrieved at different times. For example, an error in an author’s affiliation that persisted for several years might be corrected, altering the publication count for a particular institution. Similarly, enhancements to the database might lead to the inclusion of previously overlooked publications, thereby changing the overall publication metrics for an institution.

Institutional changes, such as mergers, name changes, or rebranding, also play a crucial role in how affiliations are recorded and retrieved in databases like Scopus. When institutions merge or undergo rebranding, the way affiliations are indexed in the database can change, impacting the retrieval of publication data associated with those institutions. For instance, a merger between two universities might lead to their combined publications being listed under a new or unified institutional name, affecting historical publication counts. These institutional changes, combined with continuous database updates and changes in journal indexing, contribute to the inconsistencies observed in data retrieval over extended periods, making it challenging to conduct accurate longitudinal research assessments.

Author Profiles ConsoliDation

Incorporating teachings on the use of computational technologies, such as periodic affiliation and author profile consolidation in research databases, can greatly benefit postgraduate educators. In databases like Scopus, universities can request the merging of author profiles to resolve issues like name variations and changes in affiliations. This process, known as “author profile correction,” ensures accurate attribution of publications, safeguarding metrics like the h-index and the visibility of research contributions.

Educators should emphasize the importance of this process to postgraduate students, as it maintains the integrity of their academic profiles. By teaching students how to request profile corrections and manage their Scopus records, educators can help students ensure that all their academic work is accurately reflected.

Furthermore, Scopus allows institutions to standardize different variations of their names, consolidating publications under a single institutional identity. This process is essential for universities to ensure accurate representation of their research output, which affects rankings and research impact.

Periodic reviews and collaboration between institutions and databases like Scopus can prevent inconsistencies caused by affiliation changes or name variations. Educators at the postgraduate level should guide students on the importance of maintaining updated author profiles and encourage proactive engagement with database systems. This will enhance both the institution’s and the individual researcher’s visibility and ensure long-term accuracy in their research records.

Teaching these digital practices can better prepare postgraduate students for the evolving academic landscape, where digital accuracy is crucial for reputation, research evaluation, and professional growth.

Affiliation Profiles Consolidation

In postgraduate education, teaching how to manage research profiles across databases like Scopus, Web of Science (WoS), ORCID, Google Scholar, and ResearchGate is crucial for both researchers and institutions. One important aspect of this is *affiliation consolidation*, which ensures that an institution’s publications are grouped together correctly (Cole et.al, 2023), even when its name is spelled differently in various publications.

For example, universities like “Universiti Malaya” and “University of Malaya” are the same institution(JPT, 2024a, 2024b), yet these variations could lead to fragmented records in databases. Similarly, when a university changes its name, such as “INTI University College” becoming “INTI International University,” or “Universiti Malaysia Pahang” becoming “Universiti Malaysia Pahang Al-Sultan Abdullah,” their publications may not be correctly attributed unless the names are consolidated. Scopus uses an Affiliation Identifier to help institutions manage such issues by grouping different name variations under a single profile, thus ensuring consistency.

Institutions can submit requests to Scopus to merge different versions of their names. This process is called *affiliation correction* and helps maintain the accuracy of publication records (Kousha & Thelwall, 2024). It’s important for universities to regularly review and update their profiles, as errors or inconsistencies in these records can negatively affect their publication metrics, like citation counts and h-index scores. By keeping their Scopus profiles up to date, institutions can ensure their research impact is fully recognized.

This process not only benefits the institutions but also the individual researchers. When their publications are correctly attributed, their academic visibility and reputation improve, which is essential for career progression. The same principle applies to other platforms like WoS, ORCID, and Google Scholar, where researchers need to keep their profiles updated to reflect current affiliations and new publications. ORCID, for instance, assigns unique IDs to authors, ensuring that their work is correctly linked across multiple databases.

Postgraduate educators should incorporate training on how to manage these profiles into their curricula. Teaching students to regularly update their profiles ensures their work is properly represented and accessible in the global research community (Zubir et.al, 2018). Additionally, accurate profiles allow institutions to use reliable data for research evaluations, rankings, and funding decisions( Aubert Bonn & Bouter, 2024)

By integrating these teachings into the postgraduate curriculum, educators can equip students with essential skills to manage their academic presence in the digital world. This not only enhances their personal visibility and credibility but also strengthens the institution’s research output and overall standing in global academic rankings. Understanding how to manage these platforms is a valuable skill for any postgraduate student as they build their research careers.

CONCLUSION

The study implies that educators in postgraduate studies should consider adding teachings on periodic affiliation and author profiles consolidation in the various research databases. This is to ensure a more accurate representation of their research output and metrics as such actions improve the visibility and impact of authors and institutions.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors would like to thank the Research Management Centre, University Malaysia Perlis, for the grant, UNIPRIMA 900200162 and UNIPRIMA 900100758, that made the publication of this work possible.

Competing Interests

Authors have declared that no competing interests exist

Consent (Where Ever Applicable)

N/A

Ethical Approval (Where Ever Applicable)

N/A

Artificial Intelligence Statement

This research article utilized AI and AI-assisted technologies to enhance language clarity. The content was thoroughly reviewed and verified by the authors to ensure accuracy and integrity. The authors are fully responsible for the content of the publication.

REFERENCES

1. Aksnes, D. W., Piro, F. N., & Fossum, L. W. (2023). Citation metrics covary with researchers’ assessments of the quality of their works. Quantitative Science Studies, 4(1), 105-126.
2. Ali, N., Shoaib, M., & Abdullah, F. (2023). Information literacy and research support services in academic libraries: A bibliometric analysis from 2001 to 2020. Journal of Information Science, 49(6), 1593-1606.
3. Aubert Bonn, N., & Bouter, L. (2023). Research assessments should recognize responsible research practices. Narrative review of a lively debate and promising developments. Handbook of Bioethical Decisions. Volume II: Scientific Integrity and Institutional Ethics, 441-472.
4. Cole, N. L., Reichmann, S., & Ross-Hellauer, T. (2023). Toward equitable open research: stakeholder co-created recommendations for research institutions, funders and researchers. Royal Society Open Science, 10(2), 221460.
5. Feldner, D. (2023, February 15). Scopus now includes 90 million + content records! Scopus Blog. https://blog.scopus.com/posts/scopus-now-includes-90-million-content-records
6. Finocchi, I., Ribichini, A., & Schaerf, M. (2023). An analysis of international mobility and research productivity in computer science. Scientometrics, 128(11), 6147-6175.
7. Ina, S., Aizan, Y., & Abd Aziz, N. H. (2015). Introduction sections of research articles with high and low citation indices. Pertanika Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 23(4), 1139–1152.
8. JPT (2024a),  List of Private HEI Registration and Statistic. https://jpt.mohe.gov.my/portal/index.php/en/hei/private-hei/25-list-of-private-hei-registration-and-statistic
9. JPT (2024b) Directory of Public University https://jpt.mohe.gov.my/portal/index.php/en/hei/public-hei/17-directory-of-public-university
10. Kousha, K., & Thelwall, M. (2024). Artificial intelligence to support publishing and peer review: A summary and review. Learned Publishing, 37(1), 4-12.
11. Kwiek, M., & Roszka, W. (2024). Once highly productive, forever highly productive? Full professors’ research productivity from a longitudinal perspective. Higher Education, 87(3), 519-549.
12. Meho, L. I., & Akl, E. A. (2024). Using Bibliometrics to Detect Unconventional Authorship Practices and Examine Their Impact on Global Research Metrics, 2019-2023. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.18331.
13. McCullough, R. (2022, January 13). Scopus filters for Open Access type and Green OA full-text access option. Scopus Blog. https://blog.scopus.com/posts/scopus-filters-for-open-access-type-and-green-oa-full-text-access-option
14. McCullough, R. (2022, January 13). *Scopus filters for Open Access type and Green OA full-text access option.* Scopus Blog. https://blog.scopus.com/posts/scopus-filters-for-open-access-type-and-green-oa-full-text-access-option McCullough, R. (2022, January 13). *Scopus filters for Open Access type and Green OA full-text access option.* Scopus Blog. https://blog.scopus.com/posts/scopus-filters-for-open-access-type-and-green-oa-full-text-access-option
15. Ortega, J. L., & Delgado-Quirós, L. (2024). The indexation of retracted literature in seven principal scholarly databases: a coverage comparison of dimensions, OpenAlex, PubMed, Scilit, Scopus, The Lens and Web of Science. Scientometrics, 129(7), 3769-3785.
16. Suryani, I., Yaacob, A., Asraf, R., Supian, N., MdHussin, H., & Alsaraireh, M. Y. (2024). (2024). Techniques from Language Practices of Highly Cited Authors for Technical and Vocational Education and Training Research Writing. 15(3), 202–216.
17. Williams, L., & Woods, L. (2024). Reference management practices of students, researchers, and academic staff. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 50(3), 102879.
18. Yubo, S., Ramayah, T., Hongmei, L., Yifan, Z., & Wenhui, W. (2023). Analysing the current status, hotspots, and future trends of technology management: Using the WoS and scopus database. Heliyon, 9(9), e19922-e19922.
19. Zubir, F., Suryani, I., & Ghazali, N. (2018). Integration of Augmented Reality into College Yearbook. MATEC Web of Conferences, 150. https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/ 201815005031