Scientometric Mapping of Research on‘Big Data’

Vivek Kumar Singh,Sumit Kumar Banshal, KhushbooSinghal and Ashraf Uddin

Department of Computer Science, South Asian University, New Delhi, India

Corresponding Author

Dr Vivek Kumar Singh

Department of Computer Science
South Asian University, New Delhi-110021
Email: vivekks12@gmail.com
Tel: +91-11-24195148, +91-9971995005

Abstract
This paper presents a scientometric analysis of research work done on the emerging area of ‘Big
Data’ during the recent years. Research on ‘Big Data’ started during last few years and within a
short span of time has gained tremendous momentum. It is now considered one of the most
important emerging areas of research in computational sciences and related disciplines. We have
analyzed the research output data on ‘Big Data’ during 2010-2014 indexed in both the Web of
Knowledge and Scopus. The analysis maps comprehensively the parameters of total output,
growth of output, authorship and country-level collaboration patterns, major contributors
(countries, institutions and individuals), top publication sources, thematic trendsand emerging
topics in the field. The paper presents an elaborate and one of its kind scientometric mapping of
research on ‘Big Data’.

Keywords
Big Data,Big Data Analytics, Informetrics, Scientometrics.
1. Introduction

The new World Wide Web and the rapid growth of E-Systems are producing huge amount of

structured and unstructured data. The ‘volume’ and ‘velocity’ of this data generation is so large

that traditional database and information systems technologies fail to manage and process the

data appropriately. Whether it’s the user generated data on the World Wide Web (for example

500 million tweets are generated everyday on Twitter)or the data produced in commercial or

customer interaction transactions, the volume and nature of the data needs new methods,

techniques and approaches to process it. As a result new research has started during last few

years, which is now progressing at a very fast pace researching about approaches and

technologies to manage ‘Big Data’. The research on ‘Big Data’ is now attracting attention from

academia, industry and even governments around the world. It is in this context that we have

tried to map the researchdone on ‘Big Data’ during last 5 years.

We performed detailed scientometric analysis of the research output (publications) on ‘Big Data’

for a comprehensive and analytical mapping. The research output on ‘Big Data’ during 2010-

2014, indexed in both Web of Knowledge1 and Scopus2, are obtained and analyzed. The period

of last 5 years (2010-2014) is selected due to the fact that research on ‘Big Data’ started very

recently and gained momentum only during last few years. We have used the standard

scientometric methodology as well as the text-analytics based approaches for the mapping

exercise. The analysis obtains very useful and comprehensive account of research on ‘Big Data’

by illustrating all major aspects includingyear-wise research output and growth rate, authorship

1
https://apps.webofknowledge.com
2
http://www.scopus.com
and collaboration patterns, major contributors (countries, institutions, individuals), main

publication sources and the discipline-wise segmentation of research on ‘Big Data’.

The rest of the paper is organized as follows: The section 2 presents a brief overview of

importance of ‘Big Data’ research and some related work on scientometric analysis on different

narrow research themes that helped us in formulating the research plan. Section 3 describes the

data collection and methodology used. Section 4 describes the analytical outcomes on

quantification and growth of research output and section 5 presents the analytical outcomes on

authorship and collaboration patterns. The section 6 illustrates the major contributors (countries,

institutions, individuals and publication sources). Section 7 describes the main disciplines related

to the ‘Big Data’ research. The paper concludes in, section 8, with a short summary and

usefulness of this work.

2. Overview and Related Work

The term ‘Big Data’ is now a well-known and depicts a very important area of research. It has

become so important during last few years that Nature and Science have published special issues

dedicated to discuss the opportunities and challenges brought by ‘Big Data’ (Nature 455, 2008;

Science 331, 2011). Compared to traditional data, the features of ‘Big Data’ are characterized by

5V, namely, huge Volume, high Velocity, high Variety, low Veracity, and high Value (Jin et al.,

2015). Nowadays large and complex data sets are being collected for diverse reasons through all

kinds of technologies including mobile devices, remote sensing, software logs, wireless sensor

networks, social media etc. The characteristics of this ‘Big Data’ are such that we need new
theories, novel methods and right analytics tools to help scientists and business leaders make

sense of the volume of data. More precisely, what we need is research towards effective ways of

tuning ‘Big Data’ into ‘Big insights’. Mc Kinsey, the well-known management and consulting

firm, states that ‘Big Data’ has penetrated into every area of today’s industry and business

functions (Manyika et al., 2011). It is also true that ‘Big Data’ techniques and data science now

heavily influence how we conduct research across various domains including economics,

business, finance, biological sciences, health care, social sciences and the humanities (Wu &

Chin, 2014). Nations across the world have realized the potential of ‘Big Data’ research and

instituted special national programs and initiatives on ‘Big Data’ research. It is in this context

that we tried to measure and map the scientific research on ‘Big Data’ using standard

Scientometric and a text analytics-based methodology.

There exists plenty of research work on scientometric mapping of research work in a particular

discipline or a narrow research theme. Though we could not find any previous work that aims to

perform a detailed and systematic scientometric mapping on the theme of ‘Big Data’,

nevertheless previous works on different disciplines and narrow themes helped us in formulating

our research plan. We found primarily three directions of scientometric mapping in previous

works: (a) scientometric mapping on a particular subject discipline (say Computer Science), with

or without focus on a particular country/ region (for example Gupta et al., 2011; Kumar and

Garg, 2005; Singhal et al., 2014; Uddin and Singh, 2014;Ma et al., 2008); (b) scientometric

mapping of research in a narrow research theme (say Nanotechnology), with or without focus on

a particular country/ region (for example Karpagam et al., 2012; Karpagam et al., 2011; Finardi,

2011; Onel et al., 2011; Liesch et al., 2011;Cocosila et al., 2011; Jarić et al. 2012); and (c) a
comparative study of research competitivenessof institutions/ countries in one or more subject

disciplines (for example Singh et al., 2015). The only relatedresearch work we could found on

‘Big Data’ are those that discusses several questions and future prospects of ‘Big Data’. For

example, Boyd and Crawford (2012) tried to pointing some crucial questions and answers related

to ‘Big Data’ research in their work. Howe et al. (2008) described the future aspects and growth

of big data research theme, along with a discussion on vision for the ‘Big Data’ research theme.

Park &Leydesdorff (2013) examined the social and semantic networks that emerge in the ‘Big

Data’. Ekbia et al. (2014) perform a critical review of ‘Big Data’ by trying to conceptualize it

and illustrating the dilemmas andJagadish (2015) describes myths and realities around the ‘Big

Data’. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first work which performs a systematic and

detailed analytical mapping of ‘Big Data’ research.

3. Data Collection & Methodology

We have collected research output data for ‘Big Data’ theme from both Web of Knowledge

(WoK) and Scopus for the period of last 5 years i.e., 2010 to 2014. In WoK, we found a total of

1,415 records as a result of the search query [TS = (BIGDATA OR "BIG DATA")

Timespan=2010-2014, Indexes=SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, A&HCI]. The data collection

comprises of records of the type article, book review, review, meeting abstract, proceedings

paper, note, editorial material, letter etc. Each record in WoK data contains 60 fields containing

meta-data about the records, such as paper title (TI), author address (C1), citation references (Z9)

etc. In Scopus, we found a total of 6,810 records as a result of search query [TITLE-ABS-KEY

("BIG DATA") AND (LIMIT-TO ( PUBYEAR, 2014) OR LIMIT-TO (PUBYEAR, 2013) OR

LIMIT-TO (PUBYEAR, 2012) OR LIMIT-TO (PUBYEAR, 2011) OR LIMIT-TO (PUBYEAR,

2010))]. The data collection from Scopus comprises of records of the type conference paper,

article, conference review, review, article in press, editorial, short survey, note, book chapter,

letter, book, erratum etc. In Scopus, each record consists of 41 fields describing different

attributes such as abstract, paper title, author with affiliations etc. We have used the information

contained in different fields for a standard scientometric and a text-based analysis.

We have followed the standard Scientometric methodology to compute various parameters like

Relative Growth Rate (RGR),Doubling Time (DT),Collaboration Index (CI), Collaborative Co-

efficient (CC), International Collaborative Papers (ICP), G-index, HG-index, P- index etc. We

have also identified authorship patterns, top journals publishing research on ‘Big Data’, most

productive institutions and authors on ‘Big Data’ research. Further, we extracted cliques of

authors for top three most productive authors and also characterized top authors on a TP-TC plot.

Secondly, we used a text-analytics based approach to identify major disciplines in which “Big

Data’ research has been done. A frequency based analysis helped us in identifying main author

keywords in research output on ‘Big Data’, out of which we selected some important high

frequency terms (such as Hadoop, map reduce etc.) as control terms. The year-wise research

output pattern on all the control terms is plotted. A topic density plot for the selected control

terms is also drawn to visualize the major research topics in the area. We have also used author

keyword information to identify important new terms appearing as author keywords in research

papers for each of the five years.

4. Growth of Research Output

We began our scientometric analysis with a year-wise summary of research papers produced on

‘Big Data’ as obtained from WoK and Scopus indices. Thereafter, we computed two useful and

informative parameters, namely the Relative Growth Rate (RGR) and Doubling Time (DT),

during the period 2010-2014. The RGR represents growth in research output and is computed as

follows:

= ( 2 − 1) / ( 2 − 1)

where, CN2 and CN1 are the cumulative number of publications in the years T2 and T1.Since we

have computed RGR year-wise, time difference in our case is 1 year. The expression is thus

reduced to:

= ( 2/ 1)

The parameter Doubling Time (DT) is directly related to RGR and indicates the time required for

publications to become double of the existing amount. The DT is computed asfollows:

= (( 2 − 1) ∗ 2) / ( 2 − 1)

Again, in the present case, the expression can be written as:

= 2/

The table 1presents the sequential distribution of research output, cumulative output, RGR, DT,

mean RGR and mean DT for the period 2010-2014 for data obtained from both WoK and

Scopus.We can see from the table that total research output in both cases of WoK and Scopus

has increasedsignificantly. The RGR and DT values though impressive for an emerging

discipline, fluctuate for later years. Overall, there is a clear trend of high growth in research
output on ‘Big Data’ as seen from data from WoK and Scopus. We have also computed country-

wise research output distribution of the data obtained from WoK andScopus. The table 2presents

the year-wise research output, indexed in WoK and Scopus, for some of the top output producing

countries. We observe that out of 1,415 and 6,810 publication records in WoK and Scopus,

respectively, 48.98 % and 17.05 % contribution is that of United States alone. China, United

Kingdom and Germany stand at 2nd, 3rd and 4th position, respectively, in terms of the total

research output produced. We have also plotted the country-level collaboration network in figure

1 to get an idea about the country-level ICP characteristics of ‘Big Data’ research. It can be

clearly observed form the figure that ‘United States - China’ tie is the strongest ICP instance

followed by ‘United States – United Kingdom’. Further, ‘United States’ has the highest ICP

instances involving different countries.

5. Authorship and Collaboration Patterns

Our second parameter of analysis is authorship and collaboration patterns observed in research

output on ‘Big Data’. In addition to plotting year-wise authorship trend (1, 2, 3 and >3 authors),

we have also computed standard parameters Collaboration Index (CI), Degree of Collaboration

(DC) and Collaborative Coefficient (CC). The CI measures mean number of authors per

paper(Lawani, 1980)and DC measures the proportion of multi-authored papers(Subramanyam,

1983). The CC parameter is a single measure, whichstates that quantification of collaboration

should have a value between 0 and 1, where 0 corresponds to all output being single authored

and 1 represents all papers being maximally authored(Ajiferuke et a. 1988). We define the

notations and expressions used for these computations as follows:

fj Number of Research papers in a given discipline having j authors

N Number of Research papers in a given discipline

k Maximum number of collaborating authors for a paper in a given discipline

The Collaboration Index (CI) can be computed as:

∑
=

This index results mean number of authors per paper. This index has no upper limit, hence

cannot be interpreted as degree. Further, it gives a non-zero weight to single authored papers i.e.

non collaborative papers. Therefore, other parameters are also computed. The Degree of

Collaboration (DC) can be computed as:

=1−

where, f1 is the number of single authored papers. This index can be interpreted as degree as its

value lies between ‘0’ and ‘1’ and it gives ‘0’ weight to single authored papers and value ‘1’ for

maximum collaboration. It ranks higher a discipline with higher number of multi authored papers

but doesn't differentiate between the multiple authorship levels. The Collaborative Coefficient

(CC) is a relatively more robust measure of collaborationand can be computed as:

∑
=1−

Here, every paper contains a definite amount of credit.Each author gets 1/j credit for a paper with

j authors. The value of CC lies between 0 and 1. This parameter has both the upper bound and

the distinguishing capacity between various multi-authored papers. We have computed all these

parameters for the data. The table 3 shows the year-wise distribution of number of papers having
1, 2, 3and >3 authors and the CI, DC, and CC values, for both the WoK and the Scopus data. We

observe that in general there is a trend towards more multi-authored papers.

6. Major Contributors

We have identified major journals publishing research on ‘Big Data’, the top research output

producing institutions and the most productive authors. First of all, we analyzed the WoK and

Scopus data collected to identify the most important journals that publish highly the research

output on ‘Big Data’. We have also computed H-index (Hirsch, 2005), Total Citations (TC) and

Average Citation Per Paper (ACPP) values for each of these journals. The table 4shows the top

journals (arranged according to Total Papers (TP) in WoK)) that published research on Big Data

during the last 5 years. We observe that ‘Computer’ magazine published by IEEE Computer

Society tops the list with a total of 26 papers, with aggregate ACPP 1.62 and aggregate H-index

value of 4.This is followed by journal ‘Plos One’ and so on. The journals, ‘Future Generation

Computer Systems’, ‘Health Affairs’, ‘Nature’ and ‘Science’ are other prominent journals that

published research on ‘Big Data’.

After identifying top publication sources, we moved to identify the major institutions having

significant amount of research published on ‘Big Data’. We analyzed the data and identified the

top contributing institutions to the ‘Big Data’ research during the 5-year period. We have

computed TC, ACPP, H-index, G-index, HG-index and P-index values for the data

corresponding to each of these institutions.The, G-index (Egghe, 2006) is calculated based on the

distribution of citations received by a given researcher's publications:

 Given a set of articles ranked in decreasing order of the number of citations that they

received, the G-index is the (unique) largest number such that the top g articles received

(together) at least G2 citations.

The HG-index(Alonso et al., 2010)is computed as:

=√ ∗

and the P-index(Prathap, 2010)is computed as:

/
=( . )

where, P is total number of papers and C is total citations. The P-index gives perfect stability

between quality (C/P) and quantity C. The table 5 shows the top 15 contributing institutions to

the ‘Big Data’ research as measured from WoK data. The table displays the TP, TC, ACPP, H-

index, G-index, HG-index and P-index values. The ‘Harvard University’stands at first place on

all the parameters. The ‘University of London’, ‘MIT’ and ‘Stanford University’ are few other

major contributors to ‘Big Data’ research during the last 5-year period. Different institutions,

however, rank differently on different parameters.

We have also identified the most productive authors on ‘Big Data’ research from the WoK data

obtained. The table 6 shows the 10most productive authors identified for the 5-year research

data. The TP and TC values of these authors are also displayed. We observe that ‘JJ Chen’ and

‘Y Liu’ are the top two most productive authors on the 5-year research output on ‘Big Data’. We

have also identified the co-authorship cliques for the top authors. The figures 2, 3 and 4show the

co-authorship cliquesfor the first three most productive authors.Further, we have also plotted the
top 10 most productive as well as top 10 most cited authors on a TP-TC plot to identify the most

productive authors and their impact. The figure 5 shows the top 10 most productive authors and

10 most cited authors plotted on a TP-TC plot. We observe thatnone of the authors ranked in

both most productive and most cited lists (list of top 10 authors based on WoK data).

7. Discipline Wise Output Analysis

The research on ‘Big Data’ is not confined to Computer Science only. Many disciplines have

contributed to different aspects of ‘Big Data’ research. We have tried to identify the discipline-

wise research output for ‘Big Data’ from the WoK data. The number and details of disciplines

used is described in the Appendix. We mapped multiple subject classes of WoK to broader

representative areas. Thetable 7 presents the number of research publications in 19 different

broader disciplines along with their percentage contribution to the total research output indexed

in WoK for the 5-year period. We observe that Computer Science contributes a total of 708 out

of 1,415 publications, which constitutes approximately 50% of the total output. Thus, contrary to

what one may believe, about 50% of the ‘Big Data’ research output is from disciplines other than

Computer Science. Electrical, Electronics and Telecommunication Engineering, Biological

Sciences, Medical Sciences, Management and Healthcare are some of the major contributing

disciplines to ‘Big Data’ research. A research publication may belong to more than one

discipline (due to interdisciplinary outputs)and hence the total percentage value here is greater

than 100.
The second major text-analytics based outcome that we tried to derive is about the major

research themes/ topics in ‘Big Data’ research. For this purpose, first of all we extracted all

distinct author keywords in the WoK and Scopus research output data. The occurrence

frequencies for all the distinct author keywords are computed and the author keywords are

arranged according to descending order of their occurrence frequencies. Thereafter, we identified

high-frequency important terms (hereafter called control terms) and identified the number of

research papers on that keyword. The table 8 shows the year-wise distribution of research output

on selected control terms. We see that ‘business intelligence’, ‘cloud computing’, ‘clustering’,

‘map reduce’, ‘hadoop’, ‘nosql’ are some of the prominent control terms. A significant amount

of research output is on the selected control terms that happen to be the major themes of research

in ‘Big Data’. We have also plotted the control terms on a density plot in figure

6usingVOSviewer3, where size of a term is proportional to its occurrence frequency in WoK

data.The density plot also shows the prominent research themes/ topics in ‘Big Data’ research.

8. Conclusion

We have successfully performed an analytical mapping of research on ‘Big Data’ during the last

5-year period. The research output data from both WoK and Scopus is used for the mapping and

detailed characterization of the ‘Big Data’ research. We have presented analytical outcomes for

year-wise growth of research output, country-wise output, country-level international

collaboration patterns and authorship type & collaboration patterns. All these analytical

outcomes include computation of standard scientometric parameter values, such as RGR, DT, CI,

DC, CC, H-index, G-index, HG-index, P-index etc. We have also identified major contributors to

3
http://www.vosviewer.com/Home
‘Big Data’ research in form of top journals publishing ‘Big Data’ research, top institutions

contributing to the research and the most productive and most cited authors in the area. In

addition to standard scientometric characterization, we have also adopted a text-analytics based

approach to identify the discipline-wiseresearch output on ‘Big Data’. We identify the important

control terms, plot them in a density plot and map the research output on the control terms.

Overall, we have presented a comprehensive analysis and a detailed characterization of research

on emerging area of ‘Big Data’, which is very informative, useful and first of its kind on the

theme.

9. Acknowledgements

This work is supported by research grants from Department of Science and Technology,
Government of India (Grant: INT/MEXICO/P-13/2012) and University Grants Commission of
India (Grant: F. No. 41-624/ 2012(SR)).

Appendix:

Abbreviated Form for Discipline Subjects contained

Information Systems, Software Engineering, Theory Methods,
Hardware Architecture, Artificial Intelligence, Automation Control
Computer Science Systems, Interdisciplinary Applications
Electronics, Electrical & Telecom. Engineering Electrical Electronic, Telecommunications
Biotechnology Applied Microbiology, Mathematical Computational
Biology, Neurosciences, Genetics Heredity, Psychology Biological,
Biological Sciences Biology
Biochemical Research Methods, Medicine General Internal,
Medicine Research Experimental, Medical Informatics, Oncology,
Medical Immunology
Management Management, Business, Operations Research Management Science
Health Care Sciences Services , Health Policy Services , Public
Health Care Environmental Occupational Health
Pharmacology Pharmacy, Chemistry Multidisciplinary, Biochemistry
Chemistry Molecular Biology, Chemistry Medicinal
Geography Geography, Environmental Sciences
Physics Physics Multidisciplinary, Physics Applied
Political Sciences Political Science, Public Administration
Industrial Engineering Engineering Industrial, Instruments Instrumentation
Info & Lib Science Information Science Library Science
References

Ajiferuke, I., Burell, Q., &Tague, J. (1988). Collaborative coefficient: A single measure of the
degree of collaboration in research. Scientometrics, 14(5), 421-433.

Alonso, S., Cabrerizo, F. J., Herrera-Viedma, E. and Herrera, F. (2010).hg-index: A new index to
characterize the scientific output of researchers based on the h-and g-indices. Scientometrics,
82(2), 391-400.

Big Data, Nature 455(7209), 2008, pp. 1-136;

Boyd, D. and Crawford, K. (2012) Critical Questions for Big Data.Information, Communication
& Society, 15:5, 662-679, DOI: 10.1080/1369118X.2012.678878

Cocosila, M., Serenko, A. and Turel, O. (2011).Exploring the management information systems
discipline: a scientometric study of ICIS, PACIS and ASAC.Scientometrics, 87(1), 1-16.

Dealing with Data, Science 331 (6018), 2011, pp. 639-806

Egghe, L. (2006). Theory and practice of the g-index.Scientometrics, 69(1), 131-152.

Ekbia, H., Mattioli, M., Kouper I., Arave.G., Ghazinejad, A., Bowman, T., Suri V.R., Tsou, A.,
Weingart, S. and Sugimoto, C.R. (2014) Big Data, Bigger Dilemmas: A Critical Review.Journal
of the Association for Information Science and Technology. DOI: 10.1002/asi.23294.

Finardi, U. (2011). Time relations between scientific production and patenting of knowledge: the
case of nanotechnologies. Scientometrics, 89(1), 37-50.

Gupta, B.M., Kshitij, A. and Verma, C. (2011).Mapping of Indian computer science research
output, 1999–2008.Scientometrics, 86(2), 261–283.

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.

Howe, D., Costanzo, M., Fey, P., Gojobori, T., Hannick, L., Hide, W. and Rhee, S.Y. (2008).
Big data: The future of biocuration. Nature, 455(7209), 47-50.

Jagadish, H.V. (2015) Big Data and Science: Myths and Reality. Big Data Research, (2), 49-52.
Jarić, I., Cvijanović, G., Knežević-Jarić, J. and Lenhardt, M. (2012). Trends in fisheries science
from 2000 to 2009: a bibliometric study. Reviews in Fisheries Science, 20(2), 70-79.

Jin X., Wah, B.W., Cheng, X. and Wang, Y. (2015) Significance and Challenges of Big Data
Research.Big Data Research (2), 59-64.

Karpagam, R., Gopalakrishnan, S., Babu, B.R. and Natarajan, M. (2012). Scientometric Analysis
of Stem cell Research: A comparative study of India and other countries. Collnet Journal
of Scientometrics and Information Management, 6(2), 229-252.

Karpagam, R., Gopalakrishnan, S., Natarajan, M., and Babu, B.R. (2011).Mapping of
nanoscience and nanotechnology research in India: a scientometric analysis, 1990–
2009.Scientometrics, 89(2), 501-522.

Kumar, S. and Garg, K.C. (2005). Scientometrics of computer science research in India and
China. Scientometrics, 64(2), 121-132.

Lawani, S. M. (1980). Quality, Collaboration and Citations in Cancer Research: A Bibliometric

Study [PhD Thesis]. Florida: School of library science, Florida State University.

Liesch, P.W., Håkanson, L., McGaughey, S.L., Middleton, S. and Cretchley, J. (2011). The
evolution of the international business field: a scientometric investigation of articles published in
its premier journal. Scientometrics, 88(1), 17-42.

Ma, R., Ni, C. &Qiu, J. (2008).Scientific research competitiveness of world universities in

computer science.Scientometrics, 76(2), 245–260.

Manyika J., Chui, M., Brown, B., Bughin, J., Dobbs, R., Roxburgh, C. and Hung, A. (2011) Big
Data: The next frontier for innovation, competition, and productivity, Technical Report,
McKinsey Global Institute.

Onel, S., Zeid, A. and Kamarthi, S. (2011). The structure and analysis of nanotechnology co-
author and citation networks.Scientometrics, 89(1), 119-138.

Park, H.W. and Leydesdorff, L. (2013).Decomposing social and semantic networks in emerging
“big data” research.Journal of Informetrics, 7(3), 756-765.
Prathap, G. (2010). The 100 most prolific economists using the p-index.Scientometrics, 84(1),
167-172.

Singh, V.K., Uddin, A. and Pinto, D (2015). Computer Science Research: The Top 100
Institutions in India and in the World.Scientometrics 104(2), 529-553.

Singhal K., Banshal S.K., Uddin A. and Singh V.K. (2014).The information technology
knowledge infrastructure and research in South Asia.Journal of Scientometric Research, 3(4),
134-42.

Subramanyam, K. (1983). Bibliometric studies of research collaboration: A review. Journal of

information Science, 6(1), 33-38.

Uddin, A. and Singh, V.K. (2014).Mapping the Computer Science Research in SAARC
Countries.IETE Technical Review, 31(4), 287-296.

Wu, Z. and Chin, O.B. (2014) From Big Data to Data Science: A Multi-disciplinary Perspective.
Big Data Research (1), 1-1.