Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A bibliometric analysis of publications in computer networking research

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17
Fig. 18
Fig. 19
Fig. 20
Fig. 21
Fig. 22
Fig. 23
Fig. 24
Fig. 25
Fig. 26
Fig. 27
Fig. 28

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. https://github.com/waleediqbal411/Scientometrics-paper-data2019.

  2. https://www.comsoc.org/cst.

  3. https://ton.lids.mit.edu/.

  4. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/.

  5. https://www.scopus.com.

  6. https://www.crossref.org.

  7. https://harzing.com/resources/publish-or-perish.

  8. https://www.poppler.freedesktop.org.

  9. https://products.office.com/en/excel.

  10. https://radimrehurek.com/gensim/.

  11. http://www.sigcomm.org/.

  12. http://www.ieee-infocom.org/.

  13. https://github.com/waleediqbal411/Scientometrics-paper-data2019.

References

  • 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.

  • Blei, D. M., Ng, A. Y., & Jordan, M. I. (2003). Latent Dirichlet allocation. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 3, 993–1022.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borgatti, S. P., Mehra, A., Brass, D. J., & Labianca, G. (2009). Network analysis in the social sciences. Science, 323(5916), 892–895.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coleman, M., & Liau, T. L. (1975). A computer readability formula designed for machine scoring. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60(2), 283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fernandes, J. M., & Monteiro, M. P. (2017). Evolution in the number of authors of computer science publications. Scientometrics, 110(2), 529–539.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geurts, P., Ernst, D., & Wehenkel, L. (2006). Extremely randomized trees. Machine Learning, 63(1), 3–42.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heilig, L., & Voß, S. (2014). A scientometric analysis of cloud computing literature. IEEE Transactions on Cloud Computing, 2(3), 266–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Iglič, H., Doreian, P., Kronegger, L., & Ferligoj, A. (2017). With whom do researchers collaborate and why? Scientometrics, 112(1), 153–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McLaughlin, G. H. (1969). SMOG grading—A new readability formula. Journal of Reading, 12(8), 639–646.

    Google Scholar 

  • Narin, F., Olivastro, D., & Stevens, K. A. (1994). Bibliometrics/theory, practice and problems. Evaluation Review, 18(1), 65–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nattar, S. (2009). Indian journal of physics: A scientometric analysis. International Journal of Library and Information Science, 1(4), 043–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paul, M., & Girju, R. (2009). Topic modeling of research fields: An interdisciplinary perspective. In: Proceedings of the International Conference RANLP-2009 (pp. 337–342)

  • Powell, K. (2018). These labs are remarkably diverse-here’s why they’re winning at science. Nature, 558(7708), 19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Valenzuela, M., Ha, V., & Etzioni, O. (2015). Identifying meaningful citations. In: AAAI workshop: Scholarly big data

  • Wagner, C. S., Whetsell, T. A., & Leydesdorff, L. (2017). Growth of international collaboration in science: Revisiting six specialties. Scientometrics, 110(3), 1633–1652.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weatherburn, C. E. (1949). A first course mathematical statistics (Vol. 158). Cambridge: CUP Archive.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Yin, Z., & Zhi, Q. (2017). Dancing with the academic elite: A promotion or hindrance of research production? Scientometrics, 110(1), 17–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Information Technology University, Lahore, Pakistan

    Waleed Iqbal, Junaid Qadir, Adnan Noor Mian & Saeed-ul Hassan

  2. Queen Mary University of London, London, UK

    Gareth Tyson

  3. Computer Laboratory, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK

    Adnan Noor Mian & Jon Crowcroft

Authors
  1. Waleed Iqbal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Junaid Qadir
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Gareth Tyson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Adnan Noor Mian
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Saeed-ul Hassan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Jon Crowcroft
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Waleed Iqbal.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Iqbal, W., Qadir, J., Tyson, G. et al. A bibliometric analysis of publications in computer networking research. Scientometrics 119, 1121–1155 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03086-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03086-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation