Advertisement

Scientometrics

, Volume 119, Issue 2, pp 1121–1155 | Cite as

A bibliometric analysis of publications in computer networking research

  • Waleed IqbalEmail author
  • Junaid Qadir
  • Gareth Tyson
  • Adnan Noor Mian
  • Saeed-ul Hassan
  • Jon Crowcroft
Article

Abstract

Computer networking is a major research discipline in computer science, electrical engineering, and computer engineering. The field has been actively growing, in terms of both research and development, for the past hundred years. This study uses the article content and metadata of four important computer networking periodicals—IEEE Communications Surveys and Tutorials (COMST), IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking (TON), ACM Special Interest Group on Data Communications (SIGCOMM), and IEEE International Conference on Computer Communications (INFOCOM)—obtained using ACM, IEEE Xplore, Scopus and CrossRef, for an 18-year period (2000–2017) to address important bibliometrics questions. All of the venues are prestigious, yet they publish quite different research. The first two of these periodicals (COMST and TON) are highly reputed journals of the fields while SIGCOMM and INFOCOM are considered top conferences of the field. SIGCOMM and INFOCOM publish new original research. TON has a similar genre and publishes new original research as well as the extended versions of different research published in the conferences such as SIGCOMM and INFOCOM, while COMST publishes surveys and reviews (which not only summarize previous works but highlight future research opportunities). In this study, we aim to track the co-evolution of trends in the COMST and TON journals and compare them to the publication trends in INFOCOM and SIGCOMM. Our analyses of the computer networking literature include: (a) metadata analysis; (b) content-based analysis; and (c) citation analysis. In addition, we identify the significant trends and the most influential authors, institutes and countries, based on the publication count as well as article citations. Through this study, we are proposing a methodology and framework for performing a comprehensive bibliometric analysis on computer networking research. To the best of our knowledge, no such study has been undertaken in computer networking until now.

Keywords

Bibliometrics Co-authorship patterns Computer networking Full-text Social network analysis 

References

  1. Bartneck, C., & Hu, J. (2009). Scientometric analysis of the CHI proceedings. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 699–708). ACM.Google Scholar
  2. Blei, D. M., Ng, A. Y., & Jordan, M. I. (2003). Latent Dirichlet allocation. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 3, 993–1022.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. Blondel, V. D., Guillaume, J. L., Lambiotte, R., & Lefebvre, E. (2008). Fast unfolding of communities in large networks. Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment, 2008(10), P10008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Borgatti, S. P., Mehra, A., Brass, D. J., & Labianca, G. (2009). Network analysis in the social sciences. Science, 323(5916), 892–895.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chiu, D. M., & Fu, T. Z. (2010). Publish or perish in the internet age: A study of publication statistics in computer networking research. ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review, 40(1), 34–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Choi, J., Yi, S., & Lee, K. C. (2011). Analysis of keyword networks in mis research and implications for predicting knowledge evolution. Information & Management, 48(8), 371–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Coccia, M., & Wang, L. (2016). Evolution and convergence of the patterns of international scientific collaboration. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(8), 2057–2061.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Coleman, M., & Liau, T. L. (1975). A computer readability formula designed for machine scoring. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60(2), 283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Didegah, F., & Thelwall, M. (2018). Co-saved, co-tweeted, and co-cited networks. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 69, 959–973.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fernandes, J. M., & Monteiro, M. P. (2017). Evolution in the number of authors of computer science publications. Scientometrics, 110(2), 529–539.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Flittner, M., Mahfoudi, M. N., Saucez, D., Wählisch, M., Iannone, L., Bajpai, V., et al. (2018). A survey on artifacts from CoNEXT, ICN, IMC, and SIGCOMM conferences in 2017. ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review, 48(1), 75–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Geurts, P., Ernst, D., & Wehenkel, L. (2006). Extremely randomized trees. Machine Learning, 63(1), 3–42.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. Hamadicharef, B. (2012). Scientometric study of the IEEE transactions on software engineering 1980-2010. In: Proceedings of the 2011 2nd international congress on computer applications and computational science (pp. 101–106). Springer.Google Scholar
  14. Hassan, S. U., Akram, A., & Haddawy, P. (2017a). Identifying important citations using contextual information from full text. In: Proceedings of the 17th ACM/IEEE joint conference on digital libraries (pp. 41–48). IEEE Press.Google Scholar
  15. Hassan, S. U., Imran, M., Gillani, U., Aljohani, N. R., Bowman, T. D., & Didegah, F. (2017b). Measuring social media activity of scientific literature: An exhaustive comparison of scopus and novel altmetrics big data. Scientometrics, 113(2), 1037–1057.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Heilig, L., & Voß, S. (2014). A scientometric analysis of cloud computing literature. IEEE Transactions on Cloud Computing, 2(3), 266–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hirsch, J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102(46), 16569.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. Iglič, H., Doreian, P., Kronegger, L., & Ferligoj, A. (2017). With whom do researchers collaborate and why? Scientometrics, 112(1), 153–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kincaid, J. P., Fishburne, R. P, Jr., Rogers, R. L., & Chissom, B. S. (1975). Derivation of new readability formulas (automated readability index, fog count and Flesch reading ease formula) for navy enlisted personnel. Technical Report: Naval Technical Training Command Millington TN Research Branch.Google Scholar
  20. Leys, C., Ley, C., Klein, O., Bernard, P., & Licata, L. (2013). Detecting outliers: Do not use standard deviation around the mean, use absolute deviation around the median. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49(4), 764–766.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. McLaughlin, G. H. (1969). SMOG grading—A new readability formula. Journal of Reading, 12(8), 639–646.Google Scholar
  22. Narin, F., Olivastro, D., & Stevens, K. A. (1994). Bibliometrics/theory, practice and problems. Evaluation Review, 18(1), 65–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Nattar, S. (2009). Indian journal of physics: A scientometric analysis. International Journal of Library and Information Science, 1(4), 043–61.Google Scholar
  24. Nobre, G. C., & Tavares, E. (2017). Scientific literature analysis on big data and internet of things applications on circular economy: A bibliometric study. Scientometrics, 111(1), 463–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Paul, M., & Girju, R. (2009). Topic modeling of research fields: An interdisciplinary perspective. In: Proceedings of the International Conference RANLP-2009 (pp. 337–342)Google Scholar
  26. Powell, K. (2018). These labs are remarkably diverse-here’s why they’re winning at science. Nature, 558(7708), 19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rajendran, P., Jeyshankar, R., & Elango, B. (2011). Scientometric analysis of contributions to journal of scientific and industrial research. International Journal of Digital Library Services, 1(2), 79–89.Google Scholar
  28. Savić, M., Ivanović, M., & Surla, B. D. (2017). Analysis of intra-institutional research collaboration: A case of a Serbian faculty of sciences. Scientometrics, 110(1), 195–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Serenko, A., Bontis, N., & Grant, J. (2009). A scientometric analysis of the proceedings of the McMaster world congress on the management of intellectual capital and innovation for the 1996–2008 period. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 10(1), 8–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Valenzuela, M., Ha, V., & Etzioni, O. (2015). Identifying meaningful citations. In: AAAI workshop: Scholarly big data Google Scholar
  31. Wagner, C. S., Whetsell, T. A., & Leydesdorff, L. (2017). Growth of international collaboration in science: Revisiting six specialties. Scientometrics, 110(3), 1633–1652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Waheed, H., Hassan, S. U., Aljohani, N. R., & Wasif, M. (2018). A bibliometric perspective of learning analytics research landscape. Behaviour & Information Technology, 37, 941–957.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Weatherburn, C. E. (1949). A first course mathematical statistics (Vol. 158). Cambridge: CUP Archive.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  34. Yin, Z., & Zhi, Q. (2017). Dancing with the academic elite: A promotion or hindrance of research production? Scientometrics, 110(1), 17–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Zhu, X., Turney, P., Lemire, D., & Vellino, A. (2015). Measuring academic influence: Not all citations are equal. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(2), 408–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Information Technology UniversityLahorePakistan
  2. 2.Queen Mary University of LondonLondonUK
  3. 3.Computer LaboratoryUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeUK

Personalised recommendations