Advertisement

Scientometrics

, Volume 105, Issue 2, pp 883–904 | Cite as

A quantitative examination of the intellectual profile and evolution of information security from 1965 to 2015

  • Nicholas V. Olijnyk
Article

Abstract

Information security has become a central societal concern over the past two decades. Few studies have examined the information security research domain, and no literature has been found that has applied an objective, quantitative methodology. The central aim of the current research was to quantitatively describe the profile and evolution of the information security specialty. Bibliometric data extracted from 74,021 Scopus research records published from 1965 to 2015 were examined using impact and productivity measures as well as co-word and domain visualization techniques. This scientometric study presents a comprehensive view of the information security specialty from several perspectives (e.g., temporal, seminal papers, institutions, sources, authors). After a long and steady period of growth (1965–2004), an exponential publication output occurred between 2005 and 2010. Among all the countries involved in information security research, the United States and China had the greatest impact, and China has surpassed the United States in terms of productivity. Information security as a specialty is largely populated by publications from the technical fields of computer science and engineering. Several research themes were found throughout the decades (e.g., cryptography and information security management and administration), and emergent research subspecialties appeared in later decades (e.g., intrusion detection, medical data security, steganography, wireless security). This study reduces the complexity of the specialty to controllable terms, supplies objective data for science policy making, identifies the salient bibliographic units, and uncovers growth patterns. It also serves as an information retrieval tool to identify important papers, authors, and institutions.

Keywords

Co-word analysis Computer security Cyber security Information assurance Network security Specialty development 

Mathematics Subject Classification

91-02 

JEL Classification

Z00 

References

  1. Avižienis, A., Laprie, J. C., Randell, B., & Landwehr, C. (2004). Basic concepts and taxonomy of dependable and secure computing. IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing, 1(1), 11–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bajwa, R. S., Yaldram, K., & Rafique, S. (2013). A scientometric assessment of research output in nanoscience and nanotechnology: Pakistan perspective. Scientometrics, 94(1), 333–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barabasi, A. L., & Bonabeau, E. (2003). Scale-free networks. Scientific America, 288, 60–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baskaran, C. (2013). Scientometric analysis of cryptography research output. SRELS Journal of Information Management, 50(4), 413–421.Google Scholar
  5. Batistič, S., & Kaše, R. (2015). The organizational socialization field fragmentation: A bibliometric review. Scientometrics, 104(1), 121–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blažun, H., Kokol, P., & Vošner, J. (2015). Research literature production on nursing competences from 1981 till 2012: A bibliometric snapshot. Nurse Education Today, 35(5), 673–679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Blyth, A., & Kovacich, G. L. (2006). Information assurance: Securing the information environment (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
  8. Borgman, C. L., & Furner, J. (2002). Scholarly communication and bibliometrics. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 36(1), 2–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Botha, R. A., & Gaaingwe, T. G. (2006). Reflecting on 20 SEC conferences. Computers and Security, 25(4), 247–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Braun, T., Glänzel, W., & Schubert, A. (2006). A Hirsch-type index for journals. Scientometrics, 69(1), 169–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Callon, M., Law, J., & Rip, A. (1986). Mapping the dynamics of science and technology. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Campbell, J. P. (1997). Speaker recognition: A tutorial. Proceedings of the IEEE, 85(9), 1437–1462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Capaccio, T. (2013, June 10). Pentagon five-year cybersecurity plan seeks 23 billion. Bloomberg. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-10/pentagon-five-year-cybersecurity-plan-seeks-23-billion.html. Accessed 10 July, 2015.
  14. Cardona, G., & Sanz, J. P. (2015). Publication analysis of the contact lens field: What are the current topics of interest? Journal of Optometry, 8(1), 33–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cohen, R., Erez, K., Ben-Avraham, D., & Havlin, S. (2001). Breakdown of the Internet under intentional attack. Physical Review Letters, 86(16), 3682.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Corrin, A. (2013, April 10). 2014 budget: DOD budget includes boosts for cyber, future priorities. FCW. http://fcw.com/articles/2013/04/10/dod-budget.aspx. Accessed 10 July, 2015.
  17. Crowley, E. (2003). Information system security curricula development. In Proceedings of the 4th annual conference on information technology curriculum (pp. 249–255). New York, NY: ACM.Google Scholar
  18. Department of Defense. (2010). Joint publication 1-02: Department of defense dictionary of military and associated terms. Washington, DC: Department of Defense.Google Scholar
  19. Dlamini, M., Eloff, M., & Eloff, J. (2009). Information security: The moving target. Computers & Security, 28(3–4), 189–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Eom, S. B. (2003). Author co-citation analysis using custom bibliographic databases: An introduction to the SAS approach. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press.Google Scholar
  21. Eschenauer, L., & Gligor, V. D. (2002, November). A key-management scheme for distributed sensor networks. Paper presented at the proceedings of the 9th ACM conference on computer and communications security, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  22. Falagas, M. E., Pitsouni, E. L., Malietzis, G. A., & Pappas, G. (2008). Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar: Strengths and weaknesses. FASEB Journal, 22(2), 338–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Forrest, S., Hofmeyr, S., Somayaji, A., & Longstaff, T. (1996, May). A sense of self for Unix processes. In 1996 IEEE symposium on security and privacy (pp. 120–128). New York, NY: IEEE.Google Scholar
  24. Foster, I., Kesselman, C., Tsudik, G., & Tuecke, S. (1998). A security architecture for computational grids. In Proceedings of the 5th ACM conference on computer and communications security (pp. 83–92). New York, NY: ACM.Google Scholar
  25. Fuchs, L., Pernul, G., & Sandhu, R. (2011). Roles in information security—A survey and classification of the research area. Computers & Security, 30(8), 748–769.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Garfield, E. (1955). Citation indexes for science: A New dimension in documentation through association of ideas. Science, 122(3159), 108–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Goyal, V., Pandey, O., Sahai, A., & Waters, B. (2006). Attribute-based encryption for fine-grained access control of encrypted data. In Proceedings of the 13th ACM conference on computer and communications security (pp. 89–98). New York, NY: ACM.Google Scholar
  28. Hammonds, G. L. (1993). Confidentiality, integrity, assured service: Tying security all together. In Proceedings on the 19911993 workshop on new security paradigms (pp. 48–52). New York, NY: ACM.Google Scholar
  29. 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), 16569–16572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hofmeyr, S. A., Forrest, S., & Somayaji, A. (1998). Intrusion detection using sequences of system calls. Journal of Computer Security, 6(3), 151–180.Google Scholar
  31. International Monetary Fund. (2015, April). IMF world economic outlook [Data file]. Retrieved 10 July, 2015 from http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2015/01/weodata/index.aspx.
  32. Jacsó, P. (2009). The h-index for countries in Web of Science and Scopus. Online Information Review, 33(4), 831–837.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kaiser, R. (2015). The birth of cyberwar. Political Geography, 46(2015), 11–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kulkarni, A. V., Aziz, B., Shams, I., & Busse, J. W. (2009). Comparison of citations in the Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar for articles published in general medical journals. Journal of the American Medical Association, 302(10), 1092–1096.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lee, W. H. (2008). How to identify emerging research fields using scientometrics: An example in the field of Information Security. Scientometrics, 76(3), 503–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lee, J., Kraus, K. L., & Couldwell, W. T. (2009). Use of the h index in neurosurgery: Clinical article. Journal of Neurosurgery, 111(2), 387–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Liu, D., Ning, P., & Li, R. (2005). Establishing pairwise keys in distributed sensor networks. ACM Transactions on Information and System Security (TISSEC), 8(1), 41–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Liu, Z., Yin, Y., Liu, W., & Dunford, M. (2015). Visualizing the intellectual structure and evolution of innovation systems research: A bibliometric analysis. Scientometrics, 103(1), 135–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lord, K. M., & Sharp, T. (2011). America’s cyber future: Security and prosperity in the information age (Vol. I). Washington, DC: Center for a New American Security.Google Scholar
  40. Maconachy, V. W., Schou, C. D., Ragsdale, D., & Welch, D. (2001, June). A model for information assurance: An integrated approach. Paper presented at the proceedings of the 2001 IEEE workshop on information assurance and security, West Point, NY.Google Scholar
  41. Merton, R. K. (1968). The Matthew effect in science. Science, 159(3810), 56–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Meushaw, R. (2012). Developing a blueprint for a science of cyber security. Guest Editor’s Column. The Next Wave, 19(2), 1.Google Scholar
  43. Meyer, F., Paarmann, D., D’Souza, M., Olson, R., Glass, E. M., Kubal, M., et al. (2008). The metagenomics RAST server—A public resource for the automatic phylogenetic and functional analysis of metagenomes. BMC Bioinformatics, 9(1), 386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Morris, S. A., & Martens, B. (2008). Mapping research specialties. Annual Review of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 42(1), 213–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Moya-Anegon, F., Chinchilla-Rodriquez, Z., Vargas-Quesada, B., Corera-Alvarez, E., Munoz-Fernandez, F. J., Gonalez-Molina, A., et al. (2007). Coverage analysis of scopus: A metric approach. Scientometrics, 73(1), 57–58.Google Scholar
  46. Office of Management and Budget. (2013). Fiscal year 2012 report to Congress on the implementation of the Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002. Washington, DC: Office of Management and Budget.Google Scholar
  47. Oree, W. L. (2013). Analysis of the Unites States Computer Emergency Readiness Team’s (U.S. CERT) Einstein III intrusion detection system, and its impact on privacy (Master’s thesis). Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, CA.Google Scholar
  48. Pastor-Satorras, R., & Vespignani, A. (2001). Epidemic spreading in scale-free networks. Physical Review Letters, 86(14), 3200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Perez, L.C., Cooper, S., Hawthorne, E. K., Wetzel, S., Brynieisson, A., Gokce, G., et al. (2011, June). Information assurance in two- and four-year institutions. Paper presented at the proceedings of the 16th annual conference on innovation and technology in computer science education—Working group reports, New York, NY.Google Scholar
  50. Pinto, M. (2015). Viewing and exploring the subject area of information literacy assessment in higher education (2000–2011). Scientometrics, 102(1), 227–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Price, D. J. S. (1963). Little science, big science. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Price, D. J. S. (1965). Networks of scientific papers. Science, 149(3683), 510–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Price, D. J. S. (1978). Toward a model for scientific indicators. In E. Yehuda, J. Lederberg, R. K. Merton, A. Thackray, & H. Zuckerman (Eds.), Toward a metric of science: The advent of scientific indicators (pp. 69–96). New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
  54. Ratnasingham, S., & Hebert, P. D. (2007). BOLD: The barcode of life data system. Molecular Ecology Notes, 7(3), 355–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Reid, E. F., & Chen, H. (2007). Mapping the contemporary terrorism research domain. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 65(1), 42–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Rorissa, A., & Yuan, X. (2012). Visualizing and mapping the intellectual structure of information retrieval. Information Processing and Management, 48(1), 120–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Sabelfeld, A., & Myers, A. C. (2003). Language-based information-flow security. IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, 21(1), 5–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Sanz-Casado, E., Garcia-Zorita, J. C., Serrano-Lopez, A. E., Larsen, B., & Ingwersen, P. (2013). Renewable energy research 1995–2009: A case study of wind power research in EU, Spain, and Germany and Denmark. Scientometrics, 95(1), 197–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Sedighi, M. (2015). Using of co-word analysis method in mapping of the structure of scientific fields (case study: The field of informetrics). Journal of Information Processing and Management, 30(2), 373–396.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  60. Siponen, M. T., & Oinas-Kukkonen, H. (2007). A review of information security issues and respective research contributions. SIGMIS Database, 38(1), 60–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Solms, B. (2001). Information security—A multidimensional discipline. Computers & Security, 20(6), 504–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Solms, R., & Niekerk, J. (2013). From information security to cyber security. Computers and Security, 38(October), 97–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Straub, D. W. (1989). Validating instruments in MIS research. MIS Quarterly, 13(2), 147–169.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Tabah, A. N. (1999). Literature dynamics: Studies on growth, diffusion, and epidemics. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 34, 249–286.Google Scholar
  65. Van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2007). VOS: A new method for visualizing similarities between objects. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  66. Van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2010). Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics, 84(2), 523–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Van Raan, A., & Tijssen, R. (1993). The neural net of neural network research: An exercise in bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics, 26(1), 169–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Vaughn, R. B., Dampier, D. A., & Warkentin, M. B. (2004). Building an information education program. In Proceedings of the first annual conference on information security curriculum development (pp. 41–45). New York, NY: ACM.Google Scholar
  69. Vogel, R. (2012). The visible colleges of management and organization studies: A bibliometric analysis of academic journals. Organization Studies, 33(8), 1015–1043.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Waaijer, C. J., & Palmblad, M. (2015). Bibliometric mapping: Eight decades of analytical chemistry, with special focus on the use of mass spectrometry. Analytical Chemistry, 87(9), 4588–4596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. White, H. D., & McCain, K. W. (1998). Visualizing a discipline: An author co-citation analysis of information science, 1972–1995. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 49(4), 327–355.Google Scholar
  72. Whitman, M. E., & Mattord, H. J. (2009). Principles of information security (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Thomson Course Technology.Google Scholar
  73. Zhao, G., & Pietikainen, M. (2007). Dynamic texture recognition using local binary patterns with an application to facial expressions. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 29(6), 915–928.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Zhao, D., & Strotmann, A. (2015). Analysis and visualization of citation networks. New York, NY: Morgan & Claypool.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Long Island University PostBrookvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations