IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v105y2015i1d10.1007_s11192-015-1661-z.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Scientometric dimensions of cryptographic research

Author

Listed:
  • Jiban K. Pal

    (Indian Statistical Institute)

Abstract

Information security has been a crucial issue in modern information management; thus cryptographic techniques have become inevitable to safeguard the digital information assets as well as to defend the invasion of privacy in modern information society, and likely to have far reaching impact on national security policies. This paper demonstrates the intellectual development of cryptographic research based on quantifiable characteristics of scholarly publications over a decade of the present century (2001 to 2010). The study critically examines the publication growth, authorship pattern, collaboration trends, and predominant areas of research in cryptology. Rank list of prolific contributors, productive institutions, and predominant countries have been carried out using fractional counting method. Strenuous efforts have been made to perform the activity index (performance indicator) of JOC, to determine the degree of collaboration in quantitative terms, to ascertain the collaboration density, as well as to test the empirical validation of Lotka’s law in this scientific specialty. Major findings reveal that performance of JOC in cryptographic research corresponds precisely to the growth of world’s publication activity (activity index = 1.1) over a decade of time; single-authored papers count only 25 % and average authorship accounts for 2.4 per paper; an increasing trend of multi-authored publications and a significant degree of collaboration (DC = 0.74) implies that cryptographers prefer to work in highly collaborative manner; author productivity distribution data partially fits the Lotka’s law, when the value of α (productivity parameter) approximated to 2.35 (instead of 2) and the number of articles does not exceed two. While large majority of collaborations constituted across the countries (56 %), then adequate amount of inter-country bilateral and multilateral collaboration signifies higher density or greater strength in the research network; most of the potential collaborators are emanated from 10 institutions of 5 different countries; however, cryptographic research is dominated by USA and Israel. More interestingly, vast majority among top-twenty ranked productive authors are affiliated in USA and Israel; Yehuda Lindell is found to be the most prolific author followed by Rosario Gennaro (USA), Tamir Tassa (Israel), Jonathan Katz (USA), etc.; Anglo-American institutions are more open than their overseas competitors; University of California (six centers) is placed on the top of the productive institutions. The study entails distinct subject clusters (research streams); and author-assigned keyword frequencies revealed that cryptanalysis, discrete logarithm, elliptic curve, block cipher, provable security, cryptography, secure computation, oblivious transfer, public-key encryption, zero-knowledge are more prevalent and active topics of research in cryptology. The implications of empirical results to the field are discussed thoroughly, and further analyzes are proposed to visualize this assessment in a better way.

Suggested Citation

  • Jiban K. Pal, 2015. "Scientometric dimensions of cryptographic research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 105(1), pages 179-202, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:105:y:2015:i:1:d:10.1007_s11192-015-1661-z
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-015-1661-z
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-015-1661-z
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11192-015-1661-z?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ronald Rousseau, 1992. "Breakdown of the robustness property of Lotka's Law: The case of adjusted counts for multiauthorship attribution," Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 43(10), pages 645-647, December.
    2. Wolfgang Glänzel & Henk F. Moed, 2002. "Journal impact measures in bibliometric research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 53(2), pages 171-193, February.
    3. G. Van Hooydonk, 1997. "Fractional counting of multiauthored publications: Consequences for the impact of authors," Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 48(10), pages 944-945, October.
    4. Leo Egghe & Ronald Rousseau & Guido Van Hooydonk, 2000. "Methods for accrediting publications to authors or countries: Consequences for evaluation studies," Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 51(2), pages 145-157.
    5. Ernö Bujdosó & Tibor Braun, 1983. "Publication indicators of relative research efforts in physics subfields," Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 34(2), pages 150-155, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Jiban K. Pal, 2021. "Visualizing the knowledge outburst in global research on COVID-19," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(5), pages 4173-4193, May.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Waltman, Ludo, 2016. "A review of the literature on citation impact indicators," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 365-391.
    2. Serge Galam, 2011. "Tailor based allocations for multiple authorship: a fractional gh-index," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 89(1), pages 365-379, October.
    3. Kim, Jinseok & Kim, Jinmo, 2015. "Rethinking the comparison of coauthorship credit allocation schemes," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 9(3), pages 667-673.
    4. Rahman, Mohammad Tariqur & Regenstein, Joe Mac & Kassim, Noor Lide Abu & Haque, Nazmul, 2017. "The need to quantify authors’ relative intellectual contributions in a multi-author paper," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 11(1), pages 275-281.
    5. Zhang, Fang & Wu, Shengli, 2020. "Predicting future influence of papers, researchers, and venues in a dynamic academic network," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 14(2).
    6. Bar-Ilan, Judit, 2008. "Informetrics at the beginning of the 21st century—A review," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 2(1), pages 1-52.
    7. Susan George & Hiran H. Lathabai & Thara Prabhakaran & Manoj Changat, 2020. "A framework towards bias-free contextual productivity assessment," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 122(1), pages 127-157, January.
    8. Jinseok Kim & Jana Diesner, 2014. "A network-based approach to coauthorship credit allocation," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(1), pages 587-602, October.
    9. Nils T. Hagen, 2010. "Harmonic publication and citation counting: sharing authorship credit equitably – not equally, geometrically or arithmetically," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 84(3), pages 785-793, September.
    10. António Osório, 2018. "On the impossibility of a perfect counting method to allocate the credits of multi-authored publications," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(3), pages 2161-2173, September.
    11. Ross W. K. Potter & Martin Szomszor & Jonathan Adams, 2022. "Comparing standard, collaboration and fractional CNCI at the institutional level: Consequences for performance evaluation," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(12), pages 7435-7448, December.
    12. Nykl, Michal & Campr, Michal & Ježek, Karel, 2015. "Author ranking based on personalized PageRank," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 9(4), pages 777-799.
    13. Jingda Ding & Chao Liu & Qiao Zheng & Wei Cai, 2021. "A new method of co-author credit allocation based on contributor roles taxonomy: proof of concept and evaluation using papers published in PLOS ONE," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(9), pages 7561-7581, September.
    14. Yannick Berker, 2018. "Golden-ratio as a substitute to geometric and harmonic counting to determine multi-author publication credit," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 114(3), pages 839-857, March.
    15. Liu, Xuan Zhen & Fang, Hui, 2012. "Modifying h-index by allocating credit of multi-authored papers whose author names rank based on contribution," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 6(4), pages 557-565.
    16. Ch Peidu, 2019. "Can authors’ position in the ascription be a measure of dominance?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(3), pages 1527-1547, December.
    17. Osório, António (António Miguel), 2019. "The value and credits of n-authors publications," Working Papers 2072/376026, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Department of Economics.
    18. Liu, Xuan Zhen & Fang, Hui, 2023. "A geometric counting method adaptive to the author number," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 17(2).
    19. Pär Sundling, 2023. "Author contributions and allocation of authorship credit: testing the validity of different counting methods in the field of chemical biology," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(5), pages 2737-2762, May.
    20. Csomós, György, 2020. "Introducing recalibrated academic performance indicators in the evaluation of individuals’ research performance: A case study from Eastern Europe," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 14(4).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:105:y:2015:i:1:d:10.1007_s11192-015-1661-z. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.