ETRI Journal

Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (한국전자통신연구원)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Exploring the dynamic knowledge structure of studies on the Internet of things: Keyword analysis

  • Yoon, Young Seog (School of Business and Technology Management, Korea Advanced Science and Technology) ;
  • Zo, Hangjung (School of Business and Technology Management, Korea Advanced Science and Technology) ;
  • Choi, Munkee (School of Business and Technology Management, Korea Advanced Science and Technology) ;
  • Lee, Donghyun (Department of Business Administration, Korea Polytechnic University) ;
  • Lee, Hyun-woo (Broadcasting & Media Research Laboratory, Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute)
  • Received : 2018.02.12
  • Accepted : 2018.05.27
  • Published : 2018.12.06
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

A wide range of studies in various disciplines has focused on the Internet of Things (IoT) and cyber-physical systems (CPS). However, it is necessary to summarize the current status and to establish future directions because each study has its own individual goals independent of the completion of all IoT applications. The absence of a comprehensive understanding of IoT and CPS has disrupted an efficient resource allocation. To assess changes in the knowledge structure and emerging technologies, this study explores the dynamic research trends in IoT by analyzing bibliographic data. We retrieved 54,237 keywords in 12,600 IoT studies from the Scopus database, and conducted keyword frequency, co-occurrence, and growth-rate analyses. The analysis results reveal how IoT technologies have been developed and how they are connected to each other. We also show that such technologies have diverged and converged simultaneously, and that the emerging keywords of trust, smart home, cloud, authentication, context-aware, and big data have been extracted. We also unveil that the CPS is directly involved in network, security, management, cloud, big data, system, industry, architecture, and the Internet.

Keywords

References

  1. K. Ashton, That 'internet of things' thing, RFiD J. 22 (2009), no. 7, 97-114.
  2. R. Baheti and H. Gill, Cyber-physical systems, Impact Cont. Technol. 12 (2011), 161-166.
  3. L. Atzori, A. Iera, and G. Morabito, Understanding the internet of things: Definition, potentials, and societal role of a fast evolving paradigm, Ad Hoc Netw. 56 (2017), no. Sup. C, 122-140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adhoc.2016.12.004
  4. L. Atzori, A. Iera, and G. Morabito, The internet of things: A survey, Comput. Netw. 54 (2010), no. 15, 2787-2805. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.comnet.2010.05.010
  5. A. M. Ortiz et al., The cluster between internet of things and social networks: Review and research challenges, IEEE Internet Things J. 1 (2014), no. 3, 206-215. https://doi.org/10.1109/JIOT.2014.2318835
  6. A. Al-Fuqaha et al., Internet of things: A survey on enabling technologies, protocols, and applications, IEEE Commun. Surveys Tutor 17 (2015), no. 4, 2347-2376. https://doi.org/10.1109/COMST.2015.2444095
  7. V. Gunes et al., A survey on concepts, applications, and challenges in cyber-physical systems, Trans. Internet Inform. Syst. 8 (2014), no. 12, 4242-4268.
  8. B. N. Green, C. D. Johnson, and A. Adams, Writing narrative literature reviews for peer-reviewed journals: Secrets of the trade, J. Chiropr. Med. 5 (2006), no. 3, 101-117. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0899-3467(07)60142-6
  9. D. Rotolo, D. Hicks, and B. R. Martin, What is an emerging technology?, Res. Policy 44 (2015), no. 10, 1827-1843. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2015.06.006
  10. M. Halaweh, Emerging technology: What is it?, J. Technol. Manag. Innovation 8 (2013), no. 3, 108-115.
  11. H.-D. Ma, Internet of things: Objectives and scientific challenges, J. Comput. Sci. Technol. 26 (2011), no. 6, 919-924. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11390-011-1189-5
  12. A. Koubaa and B. Andersson, A vision of cyber-physical internet, Int. Workshop Real-Time Netw. (RTN'09), Dublin, Ireland, June 2009, pp. 1-6.
  13. F. Xia et al., Internet of things, Int. J. Commun Syst 25, (2012), no. 9, 1101-1102. https://doi.org/10.1002/dac.2417
  14. ITU-T, Itu-T Standard Y.2060, 2012.
  15. Z.-K. Zhang et al., IoT security: Ongoing challenges and research opportunities, IEEE Int. Conf. Serv.-Oriented Comput. Applicat. Matsue, Japan, Nov. 2014, pp. 230-234.
  16. S. Madakam, R. Ramaswamy, and S. Tripathi, Internet of things (IoT): A literature review, J. Comput. Commun. 3 (2015), no. 5, 164-173. https://doi.org/10.4236/jcc.2015.35021
  17. A. Bassi and G. Horn, Internet of things in 2020: A roadmap for the future, Working Group RFID of the ETP EPoSS, Version 1.1, 2008, pp. 97-114.
  18. R. R. Rajkumar et al., Cyber-physical systems: The next computing revolution, Proc. Design Autom. Conf., Anaheim, CA, USA, June 13-18, pp. 731-736.
  19. E. A. Lee, Cyber-physical systems - are computing foundations adequate, Position Paper NSF Workshop Cyber-Phys. Syst.: Res. Motivation, Tech. Roadmap, Austin, TX, USA, 16-17, Oct. 2006, pp. 1-9.
  20. J. Lee, B. Bagheri, and H.-A. Kao, A cyber-physical systems architecture for industry 4.0-based manufacturing systems, Manuf. Lett. 3 (2015), 18-23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mfglet.2014.12.001
  21. J. Gubbi et al., Internet of things (IoT): A vision, architectural elements, and future directions, Future Gener. Comput. Syst. 29 (2013), no. 7, 1645-1660. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.future.2013.01.010
  22. H. Shah Ahsanul, A. Syed Mahfuzul, and R. Mustafizur, Review of cyber-physical system in healthcare, Int. J. Distrib. Sensor Netw. 10 (2014), no. 4, pp. 217415:1-217415:20.
  23. M. Farooq et al., A review on internet of things (IoT), Int. J. Comput. Applicat. 113 (2015), no. 1, 1-7.
  24. J. A. Collins and B. C. Fauser, Balancing the strengths of systematic and narrative reviews, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2005.
  25. M. Oraee et al., Collaboration in bim-based construction networks: A bibliometric-qualitative literature review, Int. J. Project Manag. 35 (2017), no. 7, 1288-1301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.07.001
  26. H.-N. Su and P.-C. Lee, Mapping knowledge structure by keyword co-occurrence: A first look at journal papers in technology foresight, Scientometrics 85 (2010), no. 1, 65-79. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-010-0259-8
  27. J. Choi and Y.-S. Hwang, Patent keyword network analysis for improving technology development efficiency, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 83 (2014), 170-182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2013.07.004
  28. Z. Hu, S. Fang, and T. Liang, Empirical study of constructing a knowledge organization system of patent documents using topic modeling, Scientometrics 100 (2014), no. 3, 787-799. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1328-1
  29. G. Kim and J. Bae, A novel approach to forecast promising technology through patent analysis, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 117 (2017), 228-237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.11.023
  30. S. Lee et al., Using patent information for designing new product and technology: Keyword based technology roadmapping, R&D Manag. 38 (2008), no. 2, 169-188. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9310.2008.00509.x
  31. I. Park et al., Exploring promising technology in ICT sector using patent network and promising index based on patent information, ETRI J. 38 (2016), no. 2, 405-415. https://doi.org/10.4218/etrij.16.0115.0613
  32. K. Song, K. Kim, and S. Lee, Identifying promising technologies using patents: A retrospective feature analysis and a prospective needs analysis on outlier patents, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 128 (2017), 118-132.
  33. B.-N. Yan, T.-S. Lee, and T.-P. Lee, Mapping the intellectual structure of the internet of things (Iot) field (2000-2014): A co-word analysis, Scientometrics 105 (2015), no. 2, 1285-1300. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1740-1
  34. S. Lee, B. Yoon, and Y. Park, An approach to discovering new technology opportunities: Keyword-based patent map approach, Technovation 29 (2009), no. 6, 481-497. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2008.10.006
  35. C. F. Mela, J. Roos, and Y. Deng, A keyword history of marketing science, Marketing Sci. 32 (2013), no. 1, 8-18. https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.1120.0764
  36. B. Fahimnia, J. Sarkis, and H. Davarzani, Green supply chain management: A review and bibliometric analysis, Int. J. Production Economics 162 (2015), 101-114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2015.01.003
  37. B. Cheng et al., Research on e-learning in the workplace 2000- 2012: A bibliometric analysis of the literature, Educational Res. Rev. 11 (2014), 56-72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2014.01.001
  38. M. E. Falagas et al., Comparison of scimago journal rank indicator with journal impact factor, FASEB J. 22 (2008), no. 8, 2623-2628. https://doi.org/10.1096/fj.08-107938
  39. L. Heilig and S. Voss, A scientometric analysis of cloud computing literature, IEEE Trans. Cloud Comput. 2 (2014), no. 3, 266-278. https://doi.org/10.1109/TCC.2014.2321168
  40. D. Mishra et al., Vision, applications and future challenges of internet of things: A bibliometric study of the recent literature, Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 116 (2016), no. 7, 1331-1355. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-11-2015-0478
  41. G. Mulligan, The internet of things: Here now and coming soon, IEEE Internet Comput. 14 (2010), no. 1, 35-36.
  42. P. Berkhin, A survey of clustering data mining techniques, Grouping Multidimensional Data, ed., Berlin, Heidelberg, Springer, 2006, pp. 25-71.
  43. M. Callon, J. P. Courtial, and F. Laville, Co-word analysis as a tool for describing the network of interactions between basic and technological research: The case of polymer chemsitry, Scientometrics 22 (1991), no. 1, 155-205. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02019280
  44. N. J. Van Eck and L. Waltman, Software survey: Vosviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping, Scientometrics 84 (2010), no. 2, 523-538. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3
  45. B. Yoon, S. Lee, and G. Lee, Development and application of a keyword-based knowledge map for effective R&D planning, Scientometrics 85 (2010), no. 3, 803-820. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-010-0294-5
  46. H. Peters and A. F. van Raan, Co-word-based science maps of chemical engineering. Part I: Representations by direct multidimensional scaling, Res. Policy 22 (1993), no. 1, 23-45. https://doi.org/10.1016/0048-7333(93)90031-C
  47. Y. Ding, G. G. Chowdhury, and S. Foo, Bibliometric cartography of information retrieval research by using co-word analysis, Inform. Process. Manag. 37 (2001), no. 6, 817-842. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0306-4573(00)00051-0
  48. A. Abbasi, L. Hossain, and L. Leydesdorff, Betweenness centrality as a driver of preferential attachment in the evolution of research collaboration networks, J. Informetrics 6 (2012), no. 3, 403-412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2012.01.002
  49. M. E. Newman, A measure of betweenness centrality based on random walks, Soc. Netw. 27 (2005), no. 1, 39-54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2004.11.009

Cited by

  1. Self-Powered Autonomous Wireless Sensor Node by Using Silicon-Based 3D Thermoelectric Energy Generator for Environmental Monitoring Application vol.13, pp.3, 2020, https://doi.org/10.3390/en13030674
  2. 블록 계층별 재학습을 이용한 다중 힌트정보 기반 지식전이 학습 vol.15, pp.2, 2018, https://doi.org/10.14372/iemek.2020.15.2.43
  3. Adversarial Optimization-Based Knowledge Transfer of Layer-Wise Dense Flow for Image Classification vol.11, pp.8, 2021, https://doi.org/10.3390/app11083720
  4. Divergence of knowledge production strategies for emerging technologies between late industrialized countries: Focusing on quantum technology vol.43, pp.2, 2018, https://doi.org/10.4218/etrij.2019-0501
  5. A novel emerging topic detection method: A knowledge ecology perspective vol.59, pp.2, 2022, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2021.102843