Mobile Forensics: A Bibliometric Analysis

  • James Gill
  • Ihechi Okere
  • Hamed HaddadPajouh
  • Ali DehghantanhaEmail author
Part of the Advances in Information Security book series (ADIS, volume 70)


In the past few years mobile devices have advanced in a variety of ways such as internal power source capacity, internal memory storage, and CPU capabilities thereby increasing computing capacity while still maintaining a portable size for the owners of mobile devices, this essentially turning it into a portable data storage device where people store their personal information. These changes in the nature and sage of the mobile devices have led to their increased importance in areas such as legal implications in police or company investigations. In this paper we will conduct a bibliometric analysis of the subject of mobile forensics which will enable us to examine the degree to which this new development can become potential evidence, the advances investigators have made over time on the subject, the possible future technologies that could influence more changes in the field of mobile forensics and its impact, covering also the difference between mobile forensics and computer forensics.


Mobile forensics Mobile analysis Bibliometric analysis 


  1. 1.
    F. Daryabar, A. Dehghantanha, B. Eterovic-Soric, and K.-K. R. Choo, “Forensic investigation of OneDrive, Box, GoogleDrive and Dropbox applications on Android and iOS devices,” Aust. J. Forensic Sci., vol. 48, no. 6, pp. 615–642, 2016.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    G. Grispos, T. Storer, and W. B. Glisson, “A comparison of forensic evidence recovery techniques for a windows mobile smart phone,” Digit. Investig., vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 23–36, 2011.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    B. C. Ogazi-Onyemaechi, A. Dehghantanha, K. R. R. Choo, and others, “Performance of android forensics data recovery tools,” 2016.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    F. Norouzizadeh Dezfouli, A. Dehghantanha, B. Eterovic-Soric, and K.-K. R. Choo, “Investigating Social Networking applications on smartphones detecting Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn and Google+ artefacts on Android and iOS platforms,” Aust. J. Forensic Sci., vol. 48, no. 4, pp. 469–488, 2016.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    M. Becher, F. C. Freiling, J. Hoffmann, T. Holz, S. Uellenbeck, and C. Wolf, “Mobile security catching up? Revealing the nuts and bolts of the security of mobile devices,” in Proceedings - IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, 2011, pp. 96–111.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    M. Petraityte, A. Dehghantanha, and others, “Mobile phone forensics: an investigative framework based on user impulsivity and secure collaboration errors,” 2016.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    M. Yates, “Practical investigations of digital forensics tools for mobile devices,” 2010 Inf. Secur. Curric. Dev. Conf., pp. 156–162, 2010.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    O. Ellegaard and J. A. Wallin, “The bibliometric analysis of scholarly production: How great is the impact?,” Scientometrics, vol. 105, no. 3, pp. 1809–1831, 2015.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    A. F. Choudhri, A. Siddiqui, N. R. Khan, and H. L. Cohen, “Understanding Bibliometric Parameters and Analysis,” RadioGraphics, vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 736–746, 2015.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    M. Olensky, M. Schmidt, and N. J. van Eck, “Evaluation of the citation matching algorithms of CWTS and iFQ in comparison to the Web of science,” J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol., vol. 67, no. 10, pp. 2550–2564, Oct. 2016.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    M. K. McBurney and P. L. Novak, “What is bibliometrics and why should you care?,” Proc. IEEE Int. Prof. Commun. Conf., pp. 108–114, 2002.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    J. L. Howland, T. C. Wright, R. A. Boughan, and B. C. Roberts, “How Scholarly Is Google Scholar? A Comparison to Library Databases,” Coll. Res. Libr., vol. 70, no. 3, pp. 227–234, 2009.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    E. Lopez-Cozar, Delgado, N. Robinson-Garcia, and D. Torres-Salinas, “Manipulating Google Scholar Citations and Google Scholar Metrics: simple, easy and tempting,” 2012.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    A. Aghaei Chadegani et al., “A comparison between two main academic literature collections: Web of science and scopus databases,” Asian Soc. Sci., vol. 9, no. 5, pp. 18–26, 2013.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    A. W. Harzing and S. Alakangas, “Google Scholar, Scopus and the Web of Science: a longitudinal and cross-disciplinary comparison,” Scientometrics, vol. 106, no. 2, pp. 787–804, 2016.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    H. Pasula, B. Marthi, B. Milch, S. Russell, and I. Shpitser, “Identity uncertainty and citation matching,” Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst., pp. 1425–1432, 2003.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    M. E. Mcveigh, “Citation Indexes and the Web of Science,” Encycl. Libr. Inf. Sci. Third Ed., no. August 2013, pp. 37–41, 2009.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    T. Reuters, “WEB OF SCIENCE, Citation Report, Thomson Reuters,” Thomson Reuters, 2014.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    A. A. for the A. of Science., “Historical Trends in Federal R&D | AAAS - The World’s Largest General Scientific Society,” Historical Trends in Federal R&D, 2016. [Online]. Available:
  20. 20.
    Tooska Dargahi, Ali Dehghantanha, and Mauro Conti, “Forensics Analysis of Android Mobile VoIP Apps,” in Contemporary Digital Forensic Investigations Of Cloud And Mobile Applications, Elsevier, pp. 7–20.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    M. N. Yusoff, R. Mahmod, A. Dehghantanha, and M. T. Abdullah, “An approach for forensic investigation in Firefox OS,” in Cyber Security, Cyber Warfare and Digital Forensic (CyberSec), 2014 Third International Conference on, 2014, pp. 22–26.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    A. Dehghantanha and K. Franke, “Privacy-respecting digital investigation,” in Privacy, Security and Trust (PST), 2014 Twelfth Annual International Conference on, 2014, pp. 129–138.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    M. Damshenas, A. Dehghantanha, K.-K. R. Choo, and R. Mahmud, “M0Droid: An Android Behavioral-Based Malware Detection Model,” J. Inf. Priv. Secur., vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 141–157, Jul. 2015.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    K. Shaerpour, A. Dehghantanha, and R. Mahmod, “Trends In Android Malware Detection,” J. Digit. Forensics Secur. Law, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 21–40, Sep. 2013.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    N. Milosevic, A. Dehghantanha, and K.-K. R. Choo, “Machine learning aided Android malware classification,” Comput. Electr. Eng. Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Amin Azmoudeh, Ali Dehghantanha and Kim-Kwang Raymond Choo, “Robust Malware Detection for Internet Of (Battlefield) Things Devices Using Deep Eigenspace Learning”, IEEE Transactions on Sustainable Computing, 2017,Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hamed HaddadPajouh, Ali Dehghantanha, Raouf Khayami, and Kim-Kwang Raymond Choo, “Intelligent OS X Malware Threat Detection”, Journal of Computer Virology and Hacking Techniques, 2017Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Sajad Homayoun, Ali Dehghantanha, Marzieh Ahmadzadeh, Sattar Hashemi, Raouf Khayami, "Know Abnormal, Find Evil: Frequent Pattern Mining for Ransomware Threat Hunting and Intelligence", IEEE Transactions on Emerging Topics in Computing, 2017 - DOI: 10.1109/TETC.2017.2756908Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Mauro Conti, Ali Dehghantanha, Katrin Franke, Steve Watson, “Internet of Things Security and Forensics: Challenges and Opportunities”, Future Generation Computer Systems Journal, DoI:, 2017
  30. 30.
    Amin Azmoodeh, Ali Dehghantanha, Mauro Conti, Raymond Choo, “Detecting Crypto-Ransomware in IoT Networks Based On Energy Consumption Footprint”, Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Humanized Computing, DOI: 10.1007/s12652-017-0558-5, 2017Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Yee-Yang Teing, Ali Dehghantanha, Kim-Kwang Raymond Choo, Zaiton Muda, and Mohd Taufik Abdullah, “Greening Cloud-Enabled Big Data Storage Forensics: Syncany as a Case Study,” IEEE Transactions on Sustainable Computing, DOI: 10.1109/TSUSC.2017.2687103, 2017.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • James Gill
    • 1
  • Ihechi Okere
    • 1
  • Hamed HaddadPajouh
    • 2
  • Ali Dehghantanha
    • 3
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Computer Science, School of Computing, Science and EngineeringUniversity of SalfordGreater ManchesterUK
  2. 2.Department of Information Technology and Computer EngineeringShiraz University of TechnologyShirazIran
  3. 3.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of SheffieldSheffieldUK

Personalised recommendations