Mathias Ekstedt

Sotirios Katsikeas, Pontus Johnson, Mathias Ekstedt et al.

In order to provide a coherent overview of cyber security research, the Scopus academic abstract and citation database was mined to create a citation graph of 98,373 authors active in the field between 1949 and early 2020. The Louvain community detection algorithm was applied to the graph in order to identify existing research communities. The analysis discovered twelve top-level communities: access control, authentication, biometrics, cryptography (I & II), cyber-physical systems, information hiding, intrusion detection, malwares, quantum cryptography, sensor networks, and usable security. These top-level communities were in turn composed of a total of 80 sub-communities. The analysis results are presented for each community in descriptive text, sub-community graphs, and tables with, for example, the most-cited papers and authors. A comparison between the detected communities and topical areas defined by other related work, is also presented, demonstrating a greater researcher emphasis on cryptography, quantum cryptography, information hiding and biometrics, at the expense of laws and regulation, risk management and governance, and security software lifecycle.

Pontus Johnson, Paul Ralph, Mathias Ekstedt et al.

Background: Philosophers of science including Collins, Feyerabend, Kuhn and Latour have all emphasized the importance of consensus within scientific communities of practice. Consensus is important for maintaining legitimacy with outsiders, orchestrating future research, developing educational curricula and agreeing industry standards. Low consensus contrastingly undermines a field's reputation and hinders peer review. Aim: This paper aims to investigate the degree of consensus within the software engineering academic community concerning members' implicit theories of software engineering. Method: A convenience sample of 60 software engineering researchers produced diagrams describing their personal understanding of causal relationships between core software engineering constructs. The diagrams were then analyzed for patterns and clusters. Results: At least three schools of thought may be forming; however, their interpretation is unclear since they do not correspond to known divisions within the community (e.g. Agile vs. Plan-Driven methods). Furthermore, over one third of participants do not belong to any cluster. Conclusion: Although low consensus is common in social sciences, the rapid pace of innovation observed in software engineering suggests that high consensus is achievable given renewed commitment to empiricism and evidence-based practice.