Skip to main content
Log in

Scientometric dimensions of cryptographic research

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

References

  • Anyi, K. W. U., Zainab, A. N., & Anuar, N. B. (2009). Bibliometric studies on single journals: A review. Malayasian Journal of Library and Information Science, 14(1), 17–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bandyopadhyay, A. K. (2001). Authorship patterns in different disciplines. Annals of Library and Information Studies, 48(4), 139–147.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blanchette, Jean-François. (2013). Burdens of proof: Cryptographic culture and evidence law in the age of electronic documents. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bookstein, A. (1976). The bibliometric distribution. Library Quarterly, 46(4), 416–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brickell, Ernest F. (1988). Editorial. Journal of Cryptology, 1(1), 1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bujdosó, E., & Braun, T. (1983). Publication indicators of relative research efforts in physics subfields. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 34(2), 150–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, C., Hu, Z., Liu, S., & Tseng, H. (2012). Emerging trends in regenerative medicine: A scientometric analysis in CiteSpace. Expert Opinion on Biological Therapy, 12(5), 593–608.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coron, J. S. (2006). What is cryptography? Security and Privacy Magazine, IEEE, 4(1), 70–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dooley, John F. (2013). A brief history of cryptology and cryptographic algorithms. New York: Springer International Publishing.

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Egghe, L., Rousseau, R., & Van-Hooydonk, G. (2000). Methods for accrediting publications to authors or countries: Consequences for evaluation studies. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 52(2), 145–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glänzel, W., & Moed, H. F. (2002). Journal impact measures in bibliometric research. Scientometrics, 53(2), 171–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gupta, D. K. (1995). Authorship trend and application of Lotka’s law: Early literature of computer based storage and retrieval of geoscientific data and information. IASLIC Bulletin, 30(1), 13–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huang, M. H., Wu, L. L. & Wu, Y. C. (2014). A study of research collaboration in the pre-web and post-web stages: a coauthorship analysis of the information systems discipline. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology (preprint).

  • Lindsey, D. (1978). The scientific publication system in social science: A study of the operation of leading professional journals in psychology, sociology, and social work. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindsey, D. (1989). Using citation counts as a measure of quality in science measuring what’s measurable rather than what’s valid. Scientometrics, 15(3), 189–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lotka, A. J. (1926). The frequency distribution of scientific productivity. Journal of the Washington Academy of Science, 16, 317–323.

    Google Scholar 

  • MathSciNet (1940–2014). Mathematical reviews on the net. American Mathematical Society (AMS), Providence, USA. http://www.ams.org/mathscinet. Accessed on 12 May 2014.

  • Murphy, L. J. (1973). Lotka’s law in the humanities. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 24(6), 461–462.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • NCSP-2013. National Cyber Security Policy: (2013). Ministry of communication and information technology, Government of India (released on 2nd July 2013). https://www.dsci.in/node/1453. Accessed on 12 September 2014.

  • Nicholls, P. T. (1986). Empirical validation of Lotka’s law. Information Processing and Management, 22(5), 417–419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pao, M. L. (1985). Lotka’s law: A testing procedure. Information Processing and Management, 21(4), 305–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pao, M. L. (1986). An empirical examination of Lotka’s law. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 37(1), 26–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perneger, T. V., & Hudelson, P. M. (2007). How international is the international journal for quality in health care? International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 19(6), 329–333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Potter, W. G. (1981). Lotka’s law revisited. Library Trends, 30(1), 21–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rousseau, R. (1992). Breakdown of the robustness property of Lotka’s law: The case of adjusted counts for multiauthorship attributions. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 43(10), 645–647.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Simpson, E. H. (1949). Measurement of diversity. Nature, 163, 688. doi:10.1038/163688a0.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Subramanyam, K. (1983). Bibliometric studies of research in collaboration: A review. Journal of Information Science, 6(1), 33–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van-Hooydonk, G. (1997). Fractional counting of multiauthored publications: Consequences for the impact of authors. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 48(10), 944–945.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jiban K. Pal.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pal, J.K. Scientometric dimensions of cryptographic research. Scientometrics 105, 179–202 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1661-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1661-z

Keywords

Navigation