Global Overview of
Cybersecurity Research (2015–2024): Bibliometric Evidence from Developing
Countries in the Americas, with a Focus on Ecuador
Panorama
global de la investigación en ciberseguridad (2015–2024): evidencia
bibliométrica desde países en desarrollo de América con enfoque en Ecuador
Juan Carlos Enrique Ortega Acosta*
Introduction
The rapid digital
transformation has enhanced the strategic role of cybersecurity in protecting
critical infrastructure, personal data, and economic assets on a global scale.
With the expansion of the Internet of Things, artificial intelligence, and remote
work environments, cyberattacks have increased in frequency, sophistication,
and scope. Recent reports agree that cybersecurity has become one of the
primary concerns in the global context.
The World Economic
Forum ranks cybersecurity incidents and failures among the most likely risks
with the greatest short-term impact, in some scenarios placing them above
economic or health-related threats (Mas, 2023). Consistent with this
assessment, the 2023 Check Point Research report estimates that the number of
cyberattacks worldwide grew by approximately 38% compared to the previous year
(Valladarez González & Cadena Martínez, 2025).
This increase has led
governments, companies, and international organizations to accelerate the
development of national cybersecurity strategies, regulatory frameworks, and
sector-specific plans, particularly in critical sectors such as healthcare,
banking, telecommunications, and education (Goycochea Kcomt,
2025; Von Solms & Van Niekerk, 2013). This is not merely a technical
problem: the way these risks are managed involves scientific, political, and
social decisions.
Hence the need for
academic research capable of anticipating new threats, discussing regulatory
proposals, and providing evidence to strengthen response capabilities,
particularly in regions with greater gaps in infrastructure and specialized
human resources (Aguilar Antonio, 2020; Nowersztern
et al., 2021).
In the academic
sphere, cybersecurity has been gaining prominence as a distinct field of study,
particularly over the past twenty years. Today, it draws on contributions from
computer science, engineering, law, and various branches of the social sciences,
which has given rise to an increasingly broad and diverse body of research.
Bibliometric studies point to a sustained—and in some areas nearly
exponential—increase in the number of articles on cybersecurity, with a strong
concentration in Scopus-indexed journals, which are largely funded and led by
institutions in the Global North (Xu et al., 2020).
In terms of topics,
there has been a shift from a perspective focused almost exclusively on the
technical protection of systems toward broader approaches that consider data
governance, the protection of critical infrastructure, and the implications of
digital ethics (AlMalki & Durugbo, 2023). In this
context, bibliometric analyses have established themselves as a useful tool for
tracking the evolution of a field, identifying leading authors and
institutions, detecting emerging research trends, and describing how scientific
collaboration networks are organized (Aria & Cuccurullo, 2017).
Despite this, few
studies apply this type of analysis to regions and countries with a lesser
presence in the mainstream literature, leaving a significant portion of
cybersecurity research uncharted, with a focus on developed and developing
countries (Onumo et al., 2017; Aljohani
et al., 2025; Purdon et al., 2020).
In the case of Latin
America, various studies agree that the region contributes only a small portion
of the total number of publications on cybersecurity and that it often does so
as a secondary partner to universities and research centers in the Global North
(Solar, 2023). This situation is not explained solely by the lack of trained
teams, but also by well-known structural conditions: limited R&D budgets,
fragmented scientific systems, a lack of continuity in public policies, and
difficulties in sustaining stable internationalization processes.
Given this scenario,
identifying which topics are under-researched and which collaborations have yet
to be established is essential for strengthening regional scientific
integration and moving toward more autonomous technology policies. Similarly,
conducting a specific mapping of cybersecurity research output in countries
such as Ecuador allows for the recognition of achievements, gaps, and potential
niches for the development of independent agendas better tailored to local
needs.
Although systematic
reviews and some case studies exist on leading countries in the region, such as
Brazil or Mexico, most global studies tend to omit Latin America as a specific
object of analysis (Onumo et al., 2017; Aljohani et al., 2025; Purdon et al., 2020; Solar, 2023;
Matilde Espino & Valencia Pérez, 2022; García, 2025; Orosco Fabian,
2024). This academic omission prevents
not only the identification of relevant actors and emerging lines of research
but also an understanding of collaboration patterns among Latin American
institutions and their level of integration into international scientific
networks.
Given this knowledge
gap, the study aims to provide concrete data on the role of developing
countries in the Americas in the construction of cybersecurity knowledge. The
overall objective is to map cybersecurity research in from 2015 to 2024,
combining a global perspective with a specific analysis of developing countries
in the Americas and an in-depth case study on Ecuador.
Based on this
approach, the study analyzes trends in scientific output, collaboration
networks among institutions, and topics that are emerging or under-researched,
with the aim of identifying strategic research gaps that can guide future lines
of work.
Ecuador has received
little attention in bibliometric studies on cybersecurity, despite facing
significant challenges in terms of digital infrastructure, regulation, and
technical capabilities. Examining its scientific output within a regional
framework allows for an assessment of its level of academic development, its
degree of integration into international networks, and the opportunities for
collaboration that can be strengthened when the system is viewed from a
comparative and structural perspective.
The article is
organized into five sections. First, it presents a review of the state of the
art and the theoretical foundation of the research. Second, it describes the
bibliometric methodology used, based on data from Scopus, processed using tools
such as VOSviewer. The third section presents the
results of the analysis at the global, regional (developing Americas), and
national (Ecuador) levels.
The fourth section is
devoted to a critical discussion of the findings, with special emphasis on
research gaps and patterns of thematic convergence and divergence. Finally, the
conclusions, limitations of the study, and recommendations for future research
are presented.
Materials
and Methods
Analyzing the evolution of cybersecurity research,
especially in countries with developing scientific systems, requires careful
and systematic work that allows for a deeper understanding and organization of
the available knowledge (Onumo et al., 2017; Aljohani et al., 2025; Purdon et al., 2020; Solar, 2023;
Matilde Espino & Valencia Pérez, 2022; García, 2025; Orosco Fabian, 2024).
To this end, rigorous and transparent procedures that can be replicated by
other researchers are employed, such as systematic literature reviews and
structured evidence syntheses.
Within this framework, bibliometric analysis has
established itself as a key tool for examining scientific output and its
performance by authors, countries, institutions, and publication sources (Aria
& Cuccurullo, 2017; Donthu et al., 2021; Zupic, 2015; Linnenluecke et al.,
2020; Wallin, 2005). By quantifying and characterizing publication patterns,
bibliometrics makes it possible to describe the configuration of cybersecurity
as an academic field and to compare the position of different regions—such as
the developing countries of the Americas and, in particular, Ecuador—within the
global research landscape.
These analyses are often complemented by visualization
techniques that generate bibliometric maps or science maps, which depict
thematic clusters and collaboration networks among disciplines, institutions,
and scientific communities (Cobo et al., 2011; van Eck & Waltman, 2010;
Börner et al., 2005). When applied to cybersecurity, this combined approach of
quantitative indicators and visual mapping offers an integrated view of the
field’s growth, the topics that are becoming established or emerging, and the ways
in which peripheral regions connect with the core of international scientific
output.
Therefore, this study is situated within the academic
literature on cybersecurity in its broadest sense, which includes both the
protection of infrastructure and information systems and the legal,
organizational, educational, and ethical dimensions linked to the digital
environment (Xu et al., 2020; AlMalki & Durugbo,
2023; Aria & Cuccurullo, 2017; Onumo et al.,
2017; Aljohani et al., 2025; Purdon et al., 2020;
Solar, 2023; Matilde Espino & Valencia Pérez, 2022; García, 2025; Orosco
Fabian, 2024).
To this end, a search strategy was defined that
combined terms related to “cybersecurity” and “information security” with
specific descriptors regarding emerging technologies, governance, and
sector-specific applications (e.g., “Internet of Things,” “artificial
intelligence,” “critical infrastructure,” “blockchain,” “telemedicine”).
The analysis was designed to cover the period
2015–2024, in line with the 10-year time frame adopted in other recent
bibliometric studies (Arar & Yurdakul, 2023; Malanski
et al., 2021; Pico Saltos et al., 2021). It is important to clarify that the
data available for this study for the year 2015 includes only one record from a
secondary source—the only one available in Scopus for that year based on the
primary search term “cybersecurity” (Kononovich et al., 2015). To
this was added 78 records downloaded from
the database, all published between
2016 and 2024 (Cunha et al., 2018; Duo et al., 2019;
Leal et al., 2019; Canuto et al., 2019; Monzelo & Nunes, 2019; Dzhalladova
et al., 2019; Mejía Miranda, 2022; Ramirez Peña et al., 2020; Monzelo &
Nunes, 2021; Sánchez Rodríguez et al., 2021; Giménez Gualdo et al., 2021;
Martínez De Morentin et al., 2021; Yevseiev et al., 2021; Valente, 2021; Lena
Acebo et al., 2022; Martins & Bruno, 2022; Azevedo et al., 2022; Monteiro
et al., 2023; Sainz Raso et al., 2023; Jullian et al., 2023; Suárez García
& Álvarez García, 2023; Nikolakopoulos et al., 2023; Gaspar et al., 2023;
Shevchenko et al., 2023; Sivianes et al., 2023; Wilkinson et al., 2024; Oviedo
et al., 2024; Salley et al., 2024; Lampropoulos et al., 2024; Gooder V, 2024;
Raza & Moazeni, 2024; Leirmo et al., 2024; Narasimhan et al., 2024;
Díaz-Cacho Medina et al., 2024; Moldovyan et al., 2024; De Guillén Gámez et
al., 2024; Matos & Guerreiro, 2024; Safarpour et al., 2024; Raza et al.,
2024; Pavão J., 2024; Reis et al., 2024; Aristizábal Correa et al., 2019; Astorga
Aguilar & Schmidt Fonseca, 2019; Serna Valdivia & Mejía Miranda, 2020;
Batista et al., 2020; Perafán del Campo et al., 2021; Saavedra et al., 2021;
Flores Ccanto et al., 2021; Flores Montaño et al., 2021; Barria et al., 2021;
Ojeda Castro, 2021; Lozano Blasco et al., 2022; Lay Lisboa et al., 2022; Pérez
Morón, 2022; Ramírez et al., 2022; Álvarez, 2022; Badilla Quintana et al.,
2022; Garcia et al., 2022; Ramírez Plascencia et al., 2022; Capobianco Peña,
2023; Rioseco Pais et al., 2023; Waller et al., 2023; Delgado Alarcón et al.,
2023; Riega Virú et al., 2023; Trejos Gil & Peláez Vélez, 2023;
Iparraguirre Villanueva et al., 2023; Cano et al., 2023; Álvarez et al., 2023;
Guerrero et al., 2024b; Heguiabehere & Pallero, 2024; Guerrero et al.,
2024a; García, 2024; Riega Virú et al., 2024; Gavilanes Molina & Merchán,
2022; Romero Izurieta et al., 2021; Jiménez & Rivera, 2021; Roldán Molina
et al., 2017; Olmo Parra et al., 2016).
The results should be interpreted as a synchronous snapshot (summarizing the
current state of research at the end of the 2015–2024 period) rather than as a
complete historical series. To this end, a phase-structured methodological
framework (see Figure 1) was followed to conduct the systematic review and
bibliometric analysis.
Figure 1. Methodological framework.
The study was organized into three levels of analysis:
1. Global
level: international scientific output in cybersecurity without explicit
geographic restrictions, used as a reference for the global landscape
(Kononovich et al., 2015; Cunha et al., 2018; Duo et al., 2019; Leal et al.,
2019; Canuto et al., 2019; Monzelo & Nunes, 2019; Dzhalladova et al., 2019;
Mejía Miranda, 2022; Ramirez Peña et al., 2020; Monzelo & Nunes, 2021;
Sánchez Rodríguez et al., 2021; Giménez Gualdo et al., 2021; Martínez De
Morentin et al., 2021; Yevseiev et al., 2021; Valente, 2021; Lena Acebo et al.,
2022; Martins & Bruno, 2022; Azevedo et al., 2022; Monteiro et al., 2023;
Sainz Raso et al., 2023; Jullian et al., 2023; Suárez García & Álvarez
García, 2023; Nikolakopoulos et al., 2023; Gaspar et al., 2023; Shevchenko et
al., 2023; Sivianes et al., 2023; Wilkinson et al., 2024; Oviedo et al., 2024;
Salley et al., 2024; Lampropoulos et al., 2024; Gooder V, 2024; Raza &
Moazeni, 2024; Leirmo et al., 2024; Narasimhan et al., 2024; Díaz-Cacho Medina
et al., 2024; Moldovyan et al., 2024; De Guillén Gámez et al., 2024; Matos
& Guerreiro, 2024; Safarpour et al., 2024; Raza et al., 2024; Pavão J.,
2024; Reis et al., 2024).
2. Regional
level: output from developing countries in the Americas, estimated using
records of institutional affiliations in Latin American countries, primarily
Brazil, Colombia, Peru, and Mexico (Aristizábal Correa et al., 2019; Astorga
Aguilar & Schmidt Fonseca, 2019; Serna Valdivia & Mejía Miranda, 2020;
Batista et al., 2020; Perafán del Campo et al., 2021; Saavedra et al., 2021;
Flores Ccanto et al., 2021; Flores Montaño et al., 2021; Barria et al., 2021;
Ojeda Castro, 2021; Lozano Blasco et al., 2022; Lay Lisboa et al., 2022; Pérez
Morón, 2022; Ramírez et al., 2022; Álvarez, 2022; Badilla Quintana et al.,
2022; Garcia et al., 2022; Ramírez Plascencia et al., 2022; Capobianco Peña,
2023; Rioseco Pais et al., 2023; Waller et al., 2023; Delgado Alarcón et al.,
2023; Riega Virú et al., 2023; Trejos Gil & Peláez Vélez, 2023;
Iparraguirre Villanueva et al., 2023; Cano et al., 2023; Alvarez et al., 2023;
Guerrero et al., 2024b; Heguiabehere & Pallero, 2024; Guerrero et al.,
2024a; García, 2024; Riega Virú et al., 2024).
3.
National level:
research affiliated with Ecuadorian institutions, which allows for an
assessment of Ecuador’s specific position within the region (Gavilanes Molina
& Merchán, 2022; Romero Izurieta et al., 2021; Jiménez & Rivera, 2021;
Roldán Molina et al., 2017; Olmo Parra et al., 2016).
This three-tiered framework makes it possible to
contrast the center and the periphery of the global scientific system and to
examine the extent to which developing countries in the Americas—and Ecuador in
particular—align with or diverge from international cybersecurity agendas
(Aguilar Antonio, 2021; Israel’s National Cybersecurity Authority, 2022a;
Carvajal Bernal & Gómez Rodríguez, 2025; Giraldo Ríos & Gómez
Rodríguez, 2025; Israel’s National Cybersecurity Authority, 2022b).
In bibliometric studies, it is essential to work with
a reliable and carefully curated information source that guarantees the
coverage and quality of the records analyzed. For this study, the Scopus
database was selected, as it is one of the largest international abstract and
citation indexes and offers broad coverage of scientific journals, conference
proceedings, and books in most fields of knowledge, including computer science,
engineering, and the social sciences—areas where cybersecurity research is concentrated.
Various comparative studies have shown that Scopus
ranks among the most widely used and reliable databases for conducting
large-scale bibliometric analyses, due to its combination of broad coverage and
strict content selection criteria overseen by independent committees (Pranckutė, 2021; Singh et al., 2021).
In addition to its thematic and geographic scope,
Scopus incorporates established metrics (such as journal impact factors) and
tools for data visualization and structured data export, which facilitate the
construction of analysis matrices, the calculation of scientific performance
indicators, and the subsequent creation of scientific maps using specialized
software. These features explain its frequent use as a primary source in recent
systematic reviews and bibliometric analyses across various fields of knowledge
(Zupic, 2015; Linnenluecke
et al., 2020).
In this study, data were extracted from Scopus in 2024
using the cybersecurity-related descriptors defined in the previous section.
Searches were conducted using the TITLE-ABS-KEY option, such that the selected
terms had to appear in the title, abstract, or keywords of the retrieved
records. Subsequently, filters were applied by year of publication and by
country of institutional affiliation to distinguish the different levels of
analysis.
Based on these search strategies, three datasets were
constructed:
1. Global
dataset: 42 international documents related to cybersecurity (Kononovich et
al., 2015; Cunha et al., 2018; Duo et al., 2019; Leal et al., 2019; Canuto et
al., 2019; Monzelo & Nunes, 2019; Dzhalladova et al., 2019; Mejía Miranda,
2022; Ramirez Peña et al., 2020; Monzelo & Nunes, 2021; Sánchez Rodríguez
et al., 2021; Giménez Gualdo et al., 2021; Martínez De Morentin et al., 2021;
Yevseiev et al., 2021; Valente, 2021; Lena Acebo et al., 2022; Martins &
Bruno, 2022; Azevedo et al., 2022; Monteiro et al., 2023; Sainz Raso et al.,
2023; Jullian et al., 2023; Suárez García & Álvarez García, 2023;
Nikolakopoulos et al., 2023; Gaspar et al., 2023; Shevchenko et al., 2023;
Sivianes et al., 2023; Wilkinson et al., 2024; Oviedo et al., 2024; Salley et
al., 2024; Lampropoulos et al., 2024; Gooder V, 2024; Raza & Moazeni, 2024;
Leirmo et al., 2024; Narasimhan et al., 2024; Díaz-Cacho Medina et al., 2024;
Moldovyan et al., 2024; De Guillén Gámez et al., 2024; Matos & Guerreiro,
2024; Safarpour et al., 2024; Raza et al., 2024; Pavão J., 2024; Reis et al.,
2024).
2. Regional
group (developing countries in the Americas): 32 documents with primary
affiliations at institutions in Latin America, particularly in Brazil and
Colombia, with some co-authors affiliated with institutions in Europe and
Oceania (Aristizábal Correa et al., 2019; Astorga Aguilar & Schmidt
Fonseca, 2019; Serna Valdivia & Mejía Miranda, 2020; Batista et al., 2020;
Perafán del Campo et al., 2021; Saavedra et al., 2021; Flores Ccanto et al.,
2021; Flores Montaño et al., 2021; Barria et al., 2021; Ojeda Castro, 2021;
Lozano Blasco et al., 2022; Lay Lisboa et al., 2022; Pérez Morón, 2022; Ramírez
et al., 2022; Álvarez, 2022; Badilla Quintana et al., 2022; Garcia et al.,
2022; Ramírez Plascencia et al., 2022; Capobianco Peña, 2023; Rioseco Pais et
al., 2023; Waller et al., 2023; Delgado Alarcón et al., 2023; Riega Virú et
al., 2023; Trejos Gil & Peláez Vélez, 2023; Iparraguirre Villanueva et al.,
2023; Cano et al., 2023; Alvarez et al., 2023; Guerrero et al., 2024b;
Heguiabehere & Pallero, 2024; Guerrero et al., 2024a; García, 2024; Riega
Virú et al., 2024).
3.
Ecuador Group:
5 papers with Ecuadorian affiliation, many of them involving additional
collaborations with institutions in Spain, Mexico, the United Kingdom, and
other countries (Gavilanes Molina & Merchán, 2022; Romero Izurieta et al.,
2021; Jiménez & Rivera, 2021; Roldán Molina et al., 2017; Olmo Parra et
al., 2016).
In all three cases, priority was given to the most
common document types in bibliometric literature: scientific articles,
conference papers, reviews, and, to a lesser extent, book chapters, in line
with methodological recommendations for systematic reviews and bibliometric
analyses.
Abstracts, editorial notes, corrections, and other
documents that did not provide basic data (publication year, title,
institutional affiliation, or keywords) were excluded. Records whose subject
matter clearly deviated from the study’s core focus—cybersecurity and
information security—were also discarded.
Since the available exports correspond to a filtered
sample of records by level, the study does not aim to comprehensively
reconstruct all existing output for the 2015–2024 period. Rather, it offers an
initial comparative analysis based on documents representative of the recent
cybersecurity agenda, which allows for the description of publication patterns,
relevant topics, and collaborative relationships among the global arena,
developing countries in the Americas, and the specific case of Ecuador.
Once the Scopus files were downloaded, a manual screening process was
applied to ensure thematic relevance and consistency of the information (Maldonado-Erazo et al., 2021). The screening followed three main steps: (i)
analysis of thematic relevance, (ii) review of geographic consistency, (iii)
evaluation of record quality.
First, titles,
abstracts, and keywords were reviewed to confirm that the main focus of each
document was indeed related to cybersecurity, information security, or closely
associated topics (e.g., IoT security, data protection, cyber risks, critical
infrastructure, cybercrime).
The review of geographic relevance covered three
levels:
1.
At the global level, studies addressing conceptual frameworks, legal
aspects, risk models, or technological applications with an international scope
were retained.
2.
At the regional level, it was verified that at least one of the primary
affiliations corresponded to institutions in developing countries in the
Americas; this made it possible to identify work with a Latin American focus,
even though some articles included co-authors from developed countries.
3.
At the Ecuadorian level, only documents with explicit affiliation to
Ecuadorian institutions were retained, whether as the lead institution or as
part of international consortia.
Finally, when evaluating the quality of the
records, potential duplicates were discarded, and it was
verified that each document contained minimum information regarding the year of
publication, document type, publication source, and number of citations. The
result of this process was a final sample of 79 documents: 42 global, 32 from developing countries in the
Americas, and 5 with Ecuadorian affiliation, which constitute the empirical
basis of the analysis.
The files exported from Scopus were initially
processed in spreadsheets (Microsoft Excel or compatible software) to clean the
fields, standardize names, and generate basic indicators of scientific output
(number of documents by type, country, and source).
Subsequently, the data were organized by level of
analysis (global, regional, national), and several matrices were prepared:
· Productivity (document–year, document–source type,
document–country of affiliation).
· Collaboration (co-authorship matrices between
institutions and between countries, based on affiliations reported in Scopus).
· Topics (co-occurrence matrices of keywords and title
terms).
To explore themes and co-occurrence patterns,
procedures were implemented that are compatible with bibliometric tools such as
VOSviewer or statistical software packages that allow
keywords to be grouped into thematic clusters (Ajibola & Cabral, 2024).
Although the sample is small, this approach makes it easier to identify
recurring thematic clusters and potential gaps, especially when comparing the
global profile with the regional one and the case of Ecuador.
The “affiliation” field was also used to group
documents by country and type of institution (universities, public agencies,
research centers, law enforcement agencies) and, in this way, identify relevant
actors at each level.
The analysis followed two main strands, drawing on classical bibliometric
approaches (Donthu et
al., 2021; Zupic, 2015; Linnenluecke
et al., 2020; Wallin, 2005). First, through a performance analysis, research output
was described in terms of the number of documents, publication types (articles,
conference papers, reviews, book chapters), participating countries and
institutions, and citations received. This section allows us to assess the
relative weight of developing countries in the Americas within the global
landscape and to situate Ecuador within that regional context.
The second phase of the analysis involved
structural analysis: the predominant themes and
the relationships among them were studied through the co-occurrence of
keywords, as well as the networks of scientific collaboration among authors,
institutions, and countries. The objective was to identify thematic clusters,
emerging areas, research gaps, and patterns of convergence or divergence among
the global, regional, and national levels (Matilde Espino & Valencia Pérez, 2022; García,
2025; Orosco Fabian, 2024).
Given the characteristics of the sample, the emphasis was not on
statistical inference but rather on a comparative
qualitative analysis of the observed patterns, which are presented in
the results section and discussed in terms of opportunities and challenges for
the region and for Ecuador.
Results
Overall, the 79 documents retrieved from Scopus show a very sharp increase
in cybersecurity output between 2015 and 2024. To better understand this trend,
three stages were identified. The first corresponds to an introductory phase
(2015–2018), during which the number of studies was still limited: only 4
publications were identified for the entire period (Kononovich et al., 2015;
Cunha et al., 2018; Roldán Molina et al., 2017; Olmo Parra et al., 2016).
This was followed by a growth phase (2019–2021), during which the number of
articles increased steadily, reaching a cumulative total of 25. Finally,
between 2022 and 2024, a phase of consolidation and expansion takes place,
during which 50 publications are concentrated and the sharpest annual increase
in output volume is recorded.
This temporal segmentation confirms that the academic community’s interest
in cybersecurity has intensified, particularly over the last three years, as
the topic has evolved from an emerging field to a clearly established area of
research. It was noted that the majority of the works consist of scientific articles (53.8%) and conference papers (35.9%), while
reviews, books, book chapters, and other types (notes and conference reviews)
account for a minority
Given the interdisciplinary nature of the field, most of the works fall
within computer science and engineering, although there are also relevant
contributions from the social sciences, mathematics, and business management.
The geographic distribution of affiliations reveals
clear leadership by European and industrialized countries. Spain is the country
with the highest number of documents associated with the search, with 20
publications (25.6%), followed by Portugal, with 13 documents (16.7%). The
United States ranks third, contributing 9 papers (11.5%), which confirms the
importance of these scientific systems in the development of cybersecurity as a
field of research.
The group of countries with intermediate output
includes Colombia (8 documents), Peru (6), Mexico (6), and Chile (5). Taken
together, these data indicate that Latin America is actively engaged in the
international cybersecurity agenda, although its publication volumes still lag
behind those of the countries leading the field.
Ecuador, with 5 papers, ranks just below these
regional producers. In addition, the corpus
includes contributions from Uruguay, Ukraine, Norway, Greece, the Russian
Federation, Costa Rica, and other countries with one or a few papers, which
helps to broaden the geographic diversity of the sample under consideration
(see Table 1).
Table 1. Top 14 countries with the highest number of documents.
|
Rank |
Country |
Documents |
Citations |
|
1 |
Spain |
20 |
332 |
|
2 |
Portugal |
13 |
112 |
|
3 |
United States |
9 |
23 |
|
4 |
Colombia |
8 |
35 |
|
5 |
Mexico |
6 |
6 |
|
6 |
Peru |
6 |
14 |
|
7 |
Chile |
5 |
20 |
|
8 |
Ecuador |
5 |
47 |
|
9 |
Ukraine |
3 |
30 |
|
10 |
Uruguay |
3 |
4 |
|
11 |
Costa Rica |
2 |
20 |
|
12 |
Greece |
2 |
13 |
|
13 |
Norway |
2 |
11 |
|
14 |
Russia |
2 |
4 |
In addition to institutional affiliations, several
particularly active academic hubs stand out. Among them are the University of Trás-os-Montes and Alto Douro
(Portugal), the Pontifical Catholic University of Peru, and several engineering
colleges at U.S. universities, each with four documents.
A second group includes institutions such as the
Universidad Privada del Norte and the University of Castilla-La Mancha, among
others. This pattern reveals a combination of European, North American, and
Latin American universities that form the core of global output.
As for the most productive authors, the Scopus
analysis identifies a small group of researchers with two or more publications
during the study period. Among them, Rabadão stands
out with three publications, followed by a group of authors with two
publications each, as shown in Table 2.
Table 2. Ranking of authors with the highest number of
publications worldwide.
|
Author |
Institution |
Country |
Papers |
Citations |
H-index* |
|
Rabadão, C. |
School of
Technology and Management, Polytechnic Institute of Leiria, Leiria |
Portugal |
3 |
42 |
2 |
|
Moazeni, F. |
P.C.
Rossin College of Engineering & Applied Science, Bethlehem, PA |
United States |
2 |
12 |
1 |
|
Raza, N. |
P.C.
Rossin College of Engineering & Applied Science, Bethlehem, PA |
United States |
2 |
12 |
1 |
|
Monzelo, P. |
ISEG
Lisbon School of Economics and Management, Lisbon |
Portugal |
2 |
10 |
2 |
|
Nunes, S. |
ISEG
Lisbon School of Economics and Management, Lisbon |
Portugal |
2 |
10 |
2 |
|
Santos, L. |
School of
Technology and Management, Polytechnic Institute of Leiria, Leiria |
Portugal |
2 |
7 |
2 |
|
Vieira, L. |
School of
Technology and Management, Polytechnic Institute of Leiria, Leiria |
Portugal |
2 |
7 |
2 |
|
Betarte, G. |
Faculty of
Engineering, University of the Republic, Montevideo |
Uruguay |
2 |
2 |
1 |
|
Campo, J. |
Faculty of
Engineering, University of the Republic, Montevideo |
Uruguay |
2 |
2 |
1 |
|
Guerrero, G. |
Faculty of
Engineering, University of the Republic, Montevideo |
Uruguay |
2 |
2 |
1 |
|
Nilupú, K. |
Faculty of Law, Universidad Privada del Norte, Trujillo, La
Libertad |
Peru |
2 |
2 |
1 |
|
Ninaquispe, M. |
Universidad Privada del Norte,
Trujillo, La Libertad |
Peru |
2 |
2 |
1 |
|
Riega, Y. |
Universidad Privada del Norte,
Trujillo, La Libertad |
Peru |
2 |
2 |
1 |
|
Salas, J. |
n Pontifical Catholic University of Peru,
Lima |
Peru |
2 |
2 |
1 |
* H-index calculated solely based on citations of
works related to cybersecurity, not on the author’s entire output in Scopus.
The relatively dispersed distribution of authorship,
with no clearly dominant figures, suggests a field in the process of
consolidation, with multiple research groups making complementary contributions
to the development of knowledge in cybersecurity.
In the case of developing countries in the Americas,
the analysis identified 37 publications linked to institutions in Latin America
and the Caribbean during the 2015–2024 period. These contributions account for
nearly half of the global output included in this study (79 documents),
indicating that the region has been incorporating cybersecurity as an
established line of research.
Most of these works are concentrated in the last four
years of the analyzed period, suggesting a recent expansion and a process of
progressive specialization in cybersecurity. The evolution of Latin American
research output over time follows a phased pattern. Between 2016 and 2017,
barely one article per year was published, and in 2018, no publications were
identified in the sample—a sign of interest that was still in its infancy and
scattered across the region.
Starting in 2019, a phase of moderate growth began,
with two studies in 2019 and another two in 2020. Although the volume remains
low, these years mark the transition from sporadic contributions to more
continuous output, during which collaborations between institutions from
different Latin American countries began to take hold.
The consolidation phase took place between 2021 and
2024, a period during which the majority of regional documents were produced
and in which cybersecurity became more firmly established on the region’s
research agendas. In 2021, 8 documents were identified, a figure that rose to 9
publications in both 2022 and 2023, while in 2024, 5 papers were recorded.
Taken together, these four years account for 31 of the
37 Latin American publications, confirming that interest in cybersecurity in
developing countries in the Americas is a recent and expanding phenomenon.
Furthermore, in several of these years, the region’s contributions accounted
for between one-third and two-thirds of the global publications in the corpus, reinforcing its growing role
on the international stage.
The analysis by country shows that cybersecurity
research output is concentrated in a small group of scientific systems.
Colombia tops the regional ranking with 8 documents and 35 citations, making it
the country with the highest volume of publications in the sample (see Table
3); it is followed by Peru, with 7 papers and 18 citations, and Mexico, with 6
publications and 6 citations.
Table 3. Most-cited Colombian publications.
|
Ranking |
Author(s) |
Year |
Title |
Citations |
Reference |
|
1 |
Pérez Morón, J. |
2022 |
Eleven
Years of Cyberattacks on Chinese Supply Chains in an Era of Cyber Warfare: A
Review and Future Research Agenda |
14 |
(Pérez Morón, 2022) |
|
2 |
Ramírez, M.; Rodríguez Ariza,
L.; Gómez Miranda, M.E.; Vartika, I |
2022 |
The
Disclosure of Cybersecurity Information by Listed Companies in Latin
America—Proposal for a Cybersecurity Disclosure Index |
12 |
(Ramírez et al., 2022) |
|
3 |
Perafán del Campo,
E.A.; Polo Alvis, S.; Sánchez Acevedo, M.E.; Miranda Aguirre, C. |
2021 |
State and
Sovereignty in Cyberspace |
4 |
(Perafán
del Campo et al., 2021) |
|
4 |
Trejos Gil, C.A.; Peláez Vélez,
Y. |
2023 |
Cybercrimes
Involving Minors on Facebook: A Systematic Literature Review |
1 |
(Trejos Gil & Peláez Vélez,
2023) |
|
5 |
Cano, J.J.; Almanza, A.R. |
2023 |
The
Information Security Function and the CISO in Colombia: 2010–2020 |
1 |
(Cano et al., 2023) |
|
6 |
Ramírez Plascencia, D.; Alonzo
González, R.M.; Marín Tapiero, J.I. |
2022 |
Risks
Faced by Underage YouTubers Due to Legislative Gaps in Mexico |
1 |
(Ramírez Plascencia et al.,
2022) |
|
7 |
Ojeda
Castro, F.A. |
2021 |
Origin,
Use, and Meaning of the Innovation Diamond |
1 |
(Ojeda Castro, 2021) |
|
8 |
Aristizábal Correa, J.M.; Marín
Ramírez, L.; Álvarez Salazar, J. |
2019 |
Identification
of safety elements based on the C2M2 model for the textile manufacturing
industry |
1 |
(Aristizábal Correa et al.,
2019) |
Chile and Ecuador rank in a second tier, both with 5
publications, though with different impact profiles: while Chile has
accumulated 20 citations, Ecuador has reached 47 citations during the period
analyzed, indicating greater average visibility for its work. Uruguay
contributes 3 publications and 4 citations, and Costa Rica stands out with only
2 documents but 20 citations, suggesting the existence of specific, high-impact
contributions. Finally, there are countries with a still-emerging presence, such
as Argentina, Brazil, Cuba, Honduras, and Jamaica, with one document each and
varying citation levels.
When the data is broken down
by institution, it becomes clear that regional output is concentrated in a few
universities and research centers. In terms of volume, the Pontifical Catholic
University of Peru (Lima) stands out, contributing 3 documents related to
cybersecurity and accumulating 5 citations.
Next is the Faculty of
Engineering at the University of the Republic (Uruguay), with 2 publications
and 2 citations, along with the Universidad Privada del Norte (Trujillo, Peru),
which also contributes 2 papers and 2 citations. The University of Guadalajara
(Mexico) also has 2 publications and 3 citations, confirming its steady
presence in regional output.
In addition, some
institutions with fewer articles have made a striking impact. This is the case
of the Business Department at the Technological University of Bolívar
(Colombia), which has received 14 citations for a single paper, and the
Cybersecurity Research Center (CICS) at Universidad Mayor (Chile), whose
published work has garnered 3 citations. These cases illustrate how certain
institutions have managed to position specific, high-visibility contributions,
even though their volume of publications remains limited.
As for the most productive
authors in developing countries in the Americas, the analysis identifies
several researchers with two publications and a modest h-index during the
period under consideration. From Uruguay, Gustavo Betarte,
Juan Diego Campo, and Guillermo Guerrero stand out—all affiliated with the
Faculty of Engineering at the University of the Republic—while from Peru, Kiara
Nilupú Moreno, Mario E. Ninaquispe
Soto, Yasmina Beatriz Riega Virú, and Juan Luis Salas
Riega, who are primarily affiliated with the Universidad Privada del Norte
(Trujillo) and the Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú (Lima).
In the case of Ecuador, the Scopus search identified
five publications with at least one Ecuadorian affiliation during the 2016–2022
period. Although the number of works is lower than that of other countries in
the region, the set of Ecuadorian publications has garnered 47 citations,
indicating a notable impact relative to its volume. Furthermore, this output is
strongly supported by international collaboration, with co-authorships linking
Ecuadorian universities to institutions in Spain, Portugal, and Mexico, among
other countries, which reinforces its visibility beyond the national sphere.
The timeline shows that Ecuador’s presence in this
field began to emerge in 2016 and 2017, with one article published each year.
Both focus on the analysis and management of information security risks: one
proposes a methodology associated with the ISO 27001 standard (9 citations),
and the other compares different cybersecurity risk analysis tools, a study
that has received 35 citations. In 2022, a new study on information technology
governance in Ecuador was published
If we consider only the number of documents, Ecuador
ranks second in regional scientific output, with 5 publications—a figure close
to that of Chile (5) and slightly below that of Colombia (8) and Peru and
Mexico (6 each). However, the picture changes when looking at the average
number of citations per article: Ecuadorian works average about 9.4 citations
per document, while Colombia averages around 4.4, Chile 4, Peru approximately
3, and Mexico around 1 citation per publication (see Table 3).
An examination of affiliations shows that Ecuadorian
research output is concentrated in a small group of institutions. Among them,
the University of the Armed Forces (ESPE) stands out, appearing in three of the
records, primarily through its Department of Computer Science. This university
participates in both methodological studies on risk analysis and articles
co-authored with European universities, positioning it as one of the leading
national institutions in this field.
The National
Polytechnic School appears in two publications, related to cybersecurity in the
Internet of Things (IoT) and engineering systems. Meanwhile, UTE University
participates in at least one study related to information technology
governance. Other institutions listed among the Ecuadorian affiliations include
Milagro State University, Yachay Tech University, and the Salesian Polytechnic
University.
Among the authors affiliated with Ecuadorian
institutions, some names appear repeatedly and hold key positions on research
teams. These include Roldán Molina, Almache Cueva, and Gavilanes Molina, along
with other researchers associated with both the National Polytechnic School and
the University of the Armed Forces (ESPE).
Within the analyzed set, the most influential paper is
“A Comparison of Cybersecurity Risk Analysis Tools” (Roldán Molina et al.,
2017), which has accumulated 35 citations. In second place is “Methodology for
Dynamic Analysis and Risk Management on ISO 27001,” with 9 citations (Olmo
Parra et al., 2016); both papers are closely related to the analysis and
management of information security risks. The most recent articles, focusing on
IT governance, information security in the public sector, and cybersecurity in
the IoT, still have a lower number of citations.
An analysis of the “Author
Keywords” identified 368 occurrences of keywords, grouped into 305 distinct
terms. Most appear only once, while only a small group is repeated across
multiple papers. Despite the wide range of terms, at least four major thematic
blocks can be distinguished that organize global cybersecurity research.
A first group brings
together studies on risks and protection on the Internet and social media; a
second cluster focuses on cybersecurity applied to infrastructure, IoT
environments, and Industry 4.0 initiatives; a third addresses educational
dimensions and the development of digital competence; and a fourth concentrates
on governance, corporate management, and financial reporting.
Viewed as a whole,
cybersecurity functions as a cross-cutting theme that intersects with
technical, organizational, educational, and social issues, rather than as an
isolated or exclusively technological field. The keyword “Cybersecurity” (or
its spelling variants in English and Spanish) is clearly dominant and is
associated with terms that refer both to specific technologies (Internet,
Internet of Things, network intrusion detection, cyber range) and to areas of
application (education, healthcare, supply chain, public administration).
When grouping keywords into thematic families, the
most frequently addressed research area in developing countries in the Americas
is “Cybercrime and Risks on Social Media,” which appears in 5 out of 37
documents. This category includes keywords
such as cyberbullying, cybercrime,
social networks, online grooming, sexting, internet addiction, and young
people. The associated studies analyze, among other aspects, cybercrimes
against minors on Facebook, addiction to new technologies and its relationship
to cyberbullying in Costa Rica, and online interactions among Chilean youth
during and after the pandemic.
Emerging Areas with Strategic Potential
Several emerging areas stand out which, although they
are represented by only one or two studies, offer high strategic potential for
future research:
AI, software quality, and cybersecurity: The
appearance of keywords such as “AI
application quality,” “AI data quality,” and “AI engineering” alongside cybersecurity terms suggests an initial
concern for the quality and security of AI-based applications.
Post-quantum cryptography and blockchain in security contexts: The isolated presence of “post-quantum cryptography” and “blockchain technology” foreshadows a
line of research focused on protecting systems against quantum threats and
using blockchain to ensure integrity,
traceability, and identity management.
Security in Complex Supply Chains and Global Services:
Although the keyword “supply chain” appears
explicitly in several papers, the number of studies remains small. However, the
intersection of logistics, services, and digital risk points to a line of
research with room for further growth.
Cybersecurity in healthcare and clinical data
supported by new technologies: Articles addressing the protection of health
information and the processing of clinical data—through concepts such as health information protection, clinical
data, data privacy, and process
mining—confirm that cybersecurity in healthcare is an emerging issue.
Global South perspective and comparative North–South
approaches: The isolated presence of keywords such as “Global South” and specific references to regions such as the
Caribbean or Southeast Asia reveals that analyses remain, to a large extent,
fragmented and lack comparative analysis.
First, there is a low number of studies on
cybersecurity in critical economic sectors, despite its importance to the
region. The sample includes occasional references to supply chains and maritime
services, but there are almost no studies addressing the security of energy
infrastructure, transportation networks, banking and financial services,
telecommunications, or water systems from a Latin American perspective
(Dzhalladova et al., 2019; Ramirez Peña et al., 2020). Most studies on the
Internet of Things (IoT) focus on general technical aspects or experimental
scenarios, without systematically delving into specific sectoral cases
(Martínez De Morentin et al., 2021; Martins & Bruno, 2022; Jullian et al.,
2023; Serna Valdivia & Mejía Miranda, 2020; Jiménez & Rivera, 2021).
A second gap lies at the intersection of
cybersecurity, healthcare, and clinical data protection. Although there are
some studies that analyze the protection of health information and the use of
techniques such as process mining, their number remains small
relative to the importance that the digitization of healthcare systems has
acquired in Latin America. There are hardly any comparative analyses of
security breaches, health data governance, or the impact of cybersecurity incidents
on hospitals and clinics in the region (Cunha et al., 2018; Monteiro et al.,
2023; Gooder V, 2024).
Research on the economic and financial dimensions of
cybersecurity is also limited (Ramirez Peña et al., 2020). Apart from isolated
mentions of the risks and costs associated with information security
management, there is no significant body of studies analyzing the costs of
incidents, investment in cybersecurity capabilities, or the impact on
competitiveness or the attraction of foreign investment—neither from the
perspective of companies nor of governments.
A fourth area that has barely been explored is that of
ethics, digital rights, and inequalities. Keywords linked to gender, the Global South, vulnerable groups,
or explicit rights-based approaches have a very limited presence in the sample
(Suárez García & Álvarez García, 2023; Wilkinson et al., 2024). In general,
technical or organizational analyses dominate, while topics such as digital
surveillance, biases and mechanisms of discrimination, differences in access to
protective measures, or the impact of cybersecurity on particularly vulnerable
groups—such as rural populations, indigenous peoples, or migrants—are scarcely
discussed.
Finally, the sample contains only very few references
to artificial intelligence, advanced cryptography, or blockchain in relation to cybersecurity (Gaspar et al., 2023;
Narasimhan et al., 2024; Giraldo Ríos & Gómez Rodríguez, 2025). These are
topics that feature prominently on the international agenda but have yet to
gain significant traction at the regional level.
The experience gained from some studies on maritime
supply chains and global services could be expanded through regional consortia
that develop comparative models, maturity indicators, and best practices
applicable to different countries.
In the field of health, early studies on privacy and
the management of clinical data pave the way for the formation of research
networks that bring together hospitals, ministries of health, and universities
from different countries. This type of collaboration would allow for a joint
study of security incidents, data breaches, and the various forms of governance
regarding health information.
From a social and legal perspective, the experience
already gained from studies on cybercrime and risks on social media could be
leveraged to launch regional observatories dedicated to closely monitoring
phenomena such as digital violence, disinformation, surveillance practices, and
inequalities in access to protective mechanisms.
Finally, the scarcity of research linking AI and
cybersecurity opens up a strategic avenue for collaborative projects that bring
together data science labs, cybersecurity groups, and public policy teams.
Based on an analysis of the keywords and titles of the
five studies, several critical areas can be identified where Ecuadorian
research output is virtually nonexistent during the period analyzed:
First, in the areas of cybercrime, social media, and
child protection, no national studies were found that address phenomena such as
cyberbullying, cybercrime, social media, or online grooming, even though these
topics feature prominently in studies from neighboring countries and are part
of the regional agenda on digital risks affecting children and adolescents
(Suárez García & Álvarez García, 2023; Lozano Blasco et al., 2022; Riega Virú et al., 2023; Trejos
Gil & Peláez Vélez, 2023).
A similar situation exists in the area of digital
competencies and cybersecurity education. Documents with Ecuadorian affiliation
do not include keywords such as “digital competence,” “teachers in training,”
“primary/secondary education,” or “teacher training,” whereas in countries such
as Chile, Peru, and Costa Rica, analyses have been published on the digital
competencies of students and teachers at these educational levels (De Guillén Gámez et al., 2024; Rioseco Pais et al., 2023).
There is also a gap in cybersecurity related to
healthcare and clinical data. Although studies on “health information
protection,” “clinical data,” and “data privacy” do appear in the global body
of research, none of the studies linked to Ecuador address the protection of
health data, the security of electronic health records, or incident management
in hospitals and other healthcare services.
As for strategic productive sectors and essential
services, no Ecuadorian research has been identified in areas such as energy,
transportation, banking, telecommunications, agriculture, or supply chains. Nor
are there any specific studies on tax administration, the justice system,
public safety, or local governments from a cybersecurity perspective.
Finally, in the field of cutting-edge cybersecurity
technologies, none of the five studies with Ecuadorian affiliation explicitly
incorporates keywords related to artificial intelligence, machine learning, blockchain, advanced cryptography, or
“zero-trust” architectures. Although the article on IoT touches on technical
security issues, the corpus as a whole does not yet address the convergence
between cybersecurity and emerging technologies, a topic that is beginning to
emerge in other contexts (Martínez De Morentin et al., 2021; Shevchenko et al.,
2023; Sivianes et al., 2023; García, 2024; Jiménez
& Rivera, 2021).
The thematic gaps described are related to several
structural challenges that emerge from the analysis of the Ecuadorian corpus:
Low volume and high institutional concentration:
Publications are identified only in connection with a small set of institutions
(primarily universities in the Sierra region and collaborations with European
centers) (Roldán Molina et al., 2017; Olmo Parra et al., 2016).
Reliance on external collaborations for advanced
topics: The only study that explicitly addresses cybersecurity in the Internet
of Things (IoT) is conducted in a comparative context with European Union
countries and involves significant participation from foreign institutions
(Jiménez & Rivera, 2021).
Clear preference for standards and models: Several
studies focus on risk analysis and IT
governance, concentrating on discussing methodologies, reference
frameworks, and decision-making structures (Jiménez & Rivera, 2021; Roldán
Molina et al., 2017; Olmo Parra et al., 2016), whereas studies applied to
concrete situations or specific sectors are scarce.
Precisely for this reason, several opportunities for
future work are emerging: conducting empirical research on social media,
education, and vulnerable groups; studying cybersecurity in key productive
sectors and public services; systematically incorporating emerging technologies
into the national cybersecurity agenda; and strengthening both regional
collaboration networks and advanced training programs.
A pattern of co-authorship based on small and
medium-sized teams is evident: the average is approximately 3.5 authors per
article, ranging from 1 to 10 authors (see Figure 11). In most cases, between 2
and 4 researchers are involved, suggesting working groups typical of
university-level research projects.
Looking at the distribution by country, co-authorship
is predominantly national. Approximately three out of every four articles (59
out of 79) were authored solely by institutions from the same country, with no
external participation. Only 19 papers include affiliations from at least two
countries, and in only one case do four countries appear in the same article.
At the global level, the countries most involved in
co-authorship are Spain, Portugal, and the United States, which frequently
serve as partners in international teams. Spain appears as a collaborating
country in several articles with Colombia, Ecuador, Chile, and Costa Rica, and
Portugal is particularly linked to Ecuador and Macao, as well as to the United
States.
At the regional level, the Latin American countries
with the strongest presence in co-authorship are Colombia, Peru, Mexico, Chile,
Ecuador, Uruguay, Costa Rica, Honduras, Cuba, and Jamaica, although a
significant portion of their articles continue to be authored solely by
researchers with national affiliations.
In Ecuador, co-authorship follows this general pattern
but with a relatively high degree of international openness. The five articles
with Ecuadorian affiliations are written by teams of between 2 and 5 authors
and combine exclusively domestic work with publications produced in
collaboration with institutions in Spain, Portugal, Mexico, and Peru.
Based on the co-occurrences of countries in the
affiliations, several clearly recognizable collaboration clusters can be
distinguished:
Iberian–Latin American cluster: Spain is frequently
linked with Colombia, Ecuador, Chile, and Costa Rica, while Portugal maintains
collaborations with Ecuador and other European partners, such as Macau and
Italy. In practice, this forms a network in which several Iberian research
groups serve as a bridge between European and Latin American universities,
particularly in studies on IT governance, cybersecurity in the IoT, digital
skills, and risk analysis.
Intra-regional Latin American cluster: Teams
comprising institutions from Colombia, Mexico, Peru, and Ecuador have been
identified, with frequent combinations such as Colombia–Mexico, Ecuador–Mexico,
Ecuador–Peru, and Mexico–Peru. The publications primarily address issues of
organizational cybersecurity, the design and evaluation of cybersecurity
policies and programs, as well as studies on risks in social media and digital
skills at various educational and professional levels.
English-speaking and Caribbean cluster: A third set of
collaborations is organized around Jamaica, the United States, and the United
Kingdom. This cluster includes works that analyze the challenges associated
with the dark web, global digital
services, and various aspects of cybersecurity in the Caribbean. In these
collaborations, Caribbean universities and research centers work as co-authors
with British and American institutions, reinforcing the region’s connection to
the English-speaking tradition of studies in this field.
Eastern European and Euro-Eastern Cluster: More
specifically, there are collaborations linking Cuba with the Russian Federation
and Ukraine with the Czech Republic. The work in this cluster focuses primarily
on the protection of critical infrastructure, the design of intrusion detection
models, and cybersecurity challenges at the state level, offering a unique
perspective on the role of cybersecurity in contexts marked by heightened
geopolitical tensions.
Within the collaboration network, Ecuador occupies a
middle ground between several clusters. On the one hand, it is part of the
Iberian–Latin American axis through work carried out alongside teams from Spain
and Portugal; on the other hand, it is integrated into the Latin American
cluster through co-authored publications with institutions in Peru and Mexico.
At the same time, it maintains a small but consistent body of exclusively
domestic research. This combination of external links and independent research
gives Ecuador a potentially significant role as a connecting node between
different regional subnetworks.
To assess the impact of a field of study, the citation
patterns of documents are typically analyzed. In this study, the scientific
output on cybersecurity identified in the sample (79 documents) has accumulated
a total of 582 citations in Scopus. Table 5 presents the 10 most-cited articles
at each level of analysis (global, developing countries in the Americas, and
Ecuador), which together account for a considerable proportion of the impact
observed during the 2015–2024 period.
Table 5. Ranking of Authors and Articles with the Greatest
Impact.
|
R |
Authors |
Year |
Title |
Citations |
Reference |
|
1 |
Ramirez Peña, M.;
Sánchez Sotano, A.J.; Pérez Fernández, V.; Abad,
F.J.; Batista Ponce, M. |
2020 |
Achieving
a Sustainable Shipbuilding Supply Chain from an Industry 4.0 Perspective |
135 |
(Ramirez
Peña et al., 2020) |
|
2 |
Jullian, O.; Otero, B.;
Rodríguez, E.; Gutierrez, N.; Antona, H.; Canal, R. |
2023 |
Deep-Learning-Based
Detection of Cyberattacks in IoT Networks: A Distributed Attack Detection
Framework |
79 |
(Jullian et al., 2023) |
|
3 |
Gaspar, J.; Cruz, T.; Lam,
C.T.; Simoes, P. |
2023 |
Smart
Substation Communications and Cybersecurity: A Comprehensive Survey |
53 |
(Gaspar et al., 2023) |
|
4 |
Roldán Molina, G.; Almache
Cueva, M.; Rabado Silva, C.; Yevseyeva,
I.; Basto Fernandes, V. |
2017 |
A
Comparison of Cybersecurity Risk Analysis Tools |
35 |
(Roldán Molina et al., 2017) |
|
5 |
Duo, A.; Basagoiti, R.;
Arrazola, P.J.; Aperribay, J.; Cuesta, M. |
2019 |
The
capacity of statistical features extracted from multiple signals to predict
tool wear in the drilling process |
27 |
(Duo et al., 2019) |
|
6 |
Pérez
Morón, J. |
2022 |
Eleven
Years of Cyberattacks on Chinese Supply Chains in an Era of Cyber Warfare: A
Review and Future Research Agenda |
14 |
(Pérez Morón, 2022) |
|
7 |
Dzhalladova, I.; Škapa, S.; Novotná, V.; Babynyuk, A. |
2019 |
Design and
Analysis of a Model for Detecting Information Attacks in Computer Networks |
14 |
(Dzhalladova
et al., 2019) |
|
8 |
Martínez De Morentin, J.I.;
Lareki, A.; Altuna Urdin, J. |
2021 |
Risks
Associated with Posting Content on Social Media |
13 |
(Martínez De Morentin et al.,
2021) |
|
9 |
Astorga Aguilar, C.; Schmidt
Fonseca, I. |
2019 |
Social
Media Dangers: How to Educate Our Children About Cybersecurity |
13 |
(Astorga Aguilar & Schmidt
Fonseca, 2019) |
|
10 |
Ramírez, M.; Rodríguez Ariza,
L.; Gómez Miranda, M.E.; Vartika, I. |
2022 |
The
Disclosure of Cybersecurity Information by Listed Companies in Latin
America—Proposal for a Cybersecurity Disclosure Index |
12 |
(Ramírez et al., 2022) |
3.5.2. Authors with the greatest scientific impact
The cybersecurity information corpus considered in
this study includes 258 authors, of whom 61 have at least 10 citations within
the corpus. Table 6 lists the 10
authors with the highest number of citations in the sample, along with their
total link strength and their country and primary affiliated institution.
Table 6. Top 10 authors.
|
R |
Author |
Citations |
Total Link
Strength |
Country |
Primary affiliation |
|
1 |
Ramirez Peña, M. |
135 |
4 |
Spain |
University of Cádiz, Cádiz |
|
2 |
Sánchez Sotano, A.J. |
135 |
4 |
Spain |
University of Cádiz, Cádiz |
|
3 |
Pérez Fernández, V. |
135 |
4 |
Spain |
University of Cádiz, Cádiz |
|
4 |
Abad, F.J. |
135 |
4 |
Spain |
Navantia S.A., Cádiz |
|
5 |
Batista Ponce, M. |
135 |
4 |
Spain |
University of Cádiz, Cádiz |
|
6 |
Jullian, O. |
79 |
5 |
Spain |
Polytechnic University of Catalonia, Barcelona |
|
7 |
Otero, B. |
79 |
5 |
Spain |
Polytechnic University of Catalonia, Barcelona |
|
8 |
Rodríguez, E. |
79 |
5 |
Spain |
Polytechnic University of Catalonia, Barcelona |
|
9 |
Gutierrez, N. |
79 |
5 |
Spain |
Polytechnic University of Catalonia, Barcelona |
|
10 |
Antona, H. |
79 |
5 |
Spain |
Polytechnic University of Catalonia, Barcelona |
Table 7 lists the 10 sources with the highest number
of citations in the sample, along with their total link strength, approximated
here by the number of documents published in each source within the corpus. It
can be observed that high-impact international journals, such as the Journal of Cleaner Production,
account for a high volume of citations with a single article, while other
sources combine a more frequent presence in the sample with a significant
impact on topics such as education, digital skills, and social cybersecurity.
Table 7. Leading journals in cybersecurity publications in the
analyzed sample.
|
Ranking |
Source |
Citations |
Total Link
Strength* |
|
1 |
Journal of Cleaner Production |
135 |
1 |
|
2 |
Journal of Network and Systems Management |
79 |
1 |
|
3 |
IEEE Communications Surveys and Tutorials |
53 |
1 |
|
4 |
Procedia Computer
Science |
35 |
1 |
|
5 |
International Journal of Advanced
Manufacturing Technology |
27 |
1 |
|
6 |
Educare Electronic Journal |
20 |
2 |
|
7 |
Journal of Asia Business Studies |
14 |
1 |
|
8 |
Economic Computation and Economic Cybernetics
Studies and Research |
14 |
1 |
|
9 |
Educational Sciences |
14 |
2 |
|
10 |
Ibero-American Journal of Learning
Technologies |
13 |
1 |
* In this study, total link strength is approximated
by the number of documents in the sample published in each source (a higher
number of articles implies a greater degree of connection between the journal
and the rest of the publication network).
A joint analysis of the three levels considered
(global, developing countries in the Americas, and Ecuador) reveals a shared
thematic core that structures cybersecurity research. In all three cases, at
least four cross-cutting themes emerge, with varying degrees of emphasis: (i) risk management
and information security in organizations; (ii) the protection of
infrastructure and connected systems (especially the Internet of Things and
Industry 4.0); (iii) risks associated with the use of the Internet and social
media; and (iv) concerns regarding cybersecurity training and skills.
On a global scale, these themes are reflected in
studies on industrial supply chains, smart substations, advanced methods for
detecting attacks on IoT networks, and analyses of the risks associated with
posting content on social media.
In Latin America,
these same topics take on a different nuance: risk management and security
policies are combined with research on cyberbullying, cybercoexistence,
and problematic social media use among adolescents. At the same time,
cybersecurity training is primarily addressed through the development of
digital skills among teachers and students. In the case of Ecuador, the
predominant areas of focus are directly aligned with this common core.
The analysis also
reveals significant differences in how research is structured at each level. On
a global scale, highly technologically complex studies predominate, and the
emphasis is on the sophistication of technical solutions and the handling of
critical infrastructure with a strong industrial component.
In developing
countries in the Americas, the agenda is more hybrid, but the region exhibits a
specific profile in which cybersecurity is closely intertwined with educational
and social issues. Ecuador, for its part, shows a specialization more focused
on process engineering and organizational management.
A combined analysis of
convergences and divergences allows us to outline several strategic
perspectives to guide future research in cybersecurity, particularly from the
perspective of developing countries and the Ecuadorian case:
International research
accounts for a significant portion of the most technical advances, particularly
in intrusion detection, security in IoT environments, and the protection of
critical infrastructure. In contrast, Latin American research contributes more
heavily to studies on social media, adolescents and youth, educational
processes, and inequalities, thereby enriching the field with distinct
questions and contexts.
A promising approach
is to promote work that combines both perspectives: for example,
technologically sophisticated detection and prevention models applied to
socially sensitive issues such as cyberbullying, misinformation, or the
protection of vulnerable groups.
In Ecuador, the
evidence points to a well-established track record in risk analysis and IT
governance, although there are still few direct applications to specific
sectors. Applying this methodological expertise to empirical studies in fields
such as health, energy, transportation, finance, or local government would help
better align national research output with the sectoral priorities already
being discussed in the international literature.
The contrast between
global, regional, and national agendas highlights the need to promote
comparative research that allows for a joint analysis of capacity gaps,
resource asymmetries, and regulatory differences that shape how each context
approaches cybersecurity. This includes comparisons both among countries in the
region and between Latin American countries and economies with high
technological capacity, incorporating shared indicators of risk, resilience,
and governance.
Topics such as
artificial intelligence applied to cybersecurity, post-quantum cryptography,
blockchain for data protection and traceability, and zero-trust architectures
barely feature on the regional and national agendas. Given their growing
importance in the global debate, they represent fertile ground for
collaborative projects that combine external technical expertise with local
contextual knowledge.
Research on
cybersecurity has grown steadily over the past two decades, but in this study
we have focused on the period 2015–2024 (specifically on 79 documents), when
the field took on a more systematic structure and clearly recognizable lines of
research began to take shape.
Three distinct phases
in the field’s evolution can be clearly identified: an initial phase between
2015 and 2018, an intermediate phase in 2019–2020, and a more intense period
between 2021 and 2024. Taken together, these stages show that cybersecurity has
evolved from appearing sporadically and in a fragmented manner to establishing
itself as a recognizable field of research, with a conceptual and empirical
foundation sufficient to begin discussing relatively stable trends and
specializations.
When mapping the data
by country, 26 nations are identified with at least one contribution, with
Spain and Portugal playing a particularly prominent role, followed by the
United States and a group of Latin American countries led by Colombia, Peru,
Mexico, Chile, and Ecuador. This research output is disseminated through a wide
variety of channels: journals with high international visibility in engineering
and management coexist with journals focused on education and the social
sciences, confirming that cybersecurity is grounded in a dual disciplinary
foundation, straddling information technology and the applied social sciences.
The intellectual
structure of the field was reconstructed using various bibliometric maps. The
keyword co-occurrence map (Figure 5) identifies “Cybersecurity” as the central
term: it appears in 28 documents and is associated with more than 300 different
terms, reflecting the diversity of approaches and contexts in which it is used.
Based on these connections, several thematic clusters emerge, grouping issues
of a technical nature (infrastructure, IoT, attack detection), organizational
(risk analysis, governance, policies), and social (social media, education,
digital skills) nature.
An analysis of
citations and the most influential authors helps identify which research areas
carry the most weight at each level. Globally, research on supply chains and
resilience in Industry 4.0, the detection of cyberattacks on IoT networks, and
studies examining cyberattacks on supply chains from a risk and geopolitical
perspective stand out.
In Latin America, the
focus is on studies regarding risks on social media and cybersecurity education
for children and adolescents, the disclosure of cybersecurity information by
publicly traded companies, and research centered on teachers’ digital skills.
In Ecuador, the impact is concentrated in articles comparing risk analysis
tools and the methodology for dynamic risk analysis and management according to
ISO 27001, which have become essential references in the country’s academic
output.
The co-citation map of
sources helps identify which journals serve as true hubs for the dissemination
of knowledge in this field. Among the most prominent are, on a global level,
the *Journal of Cleaner Production* and, on a regional level, the *Revista Electrónica Educare*. The former
contributes only one article to the corpus, but that single paper accounts for
135 citations, while the latter includes two publications totaling 20
citations. Although the number of documents is small, the volume of citations
associated with these sources demonstrates their central role in the
circulation of cybersecurity findings within the analyzed contexts.
Conclusions
This study offers a
comprehensive overview of cybersecurity research from 2015 to 2024, combining
three levels of analysis: global, developing countries in the Americas, and
Ecuador. Based on a set of documents indexed in Scopus, the study examined the
evolution of research output, the main themes, research gaps, collaboration
networks, and the publication sources that shape the field. The comparative
approach adopted in this study goes beyond a simple count of articles and
citations and offers a comprehensive analysis of how the field is shaped at
different levels.
In general terms, the
results show that cybersecurity is a rapidly expanding field, with a set of
well-established research lines centered on risk management, the protection of
connected infrastructure (IoT, smart substations, supply chains), and information
security in organizations.
This core is clearly evident in global
research output and, with some nuances, also in much of the regional and
national research (Lampropoulos et al., 2024; Gooder V, 2024; Raza &
Moazeni, 2024; Leirmo et al., 2024; Narasimhan et al., 2024; Díaz-Cacho Medina
et al., 2024; Moldovyan et al., 2024; De Guillén Gámez et al., 2024; Matos
& Guerreiro, 2024; Safarpour et al., 2024; Raza et al., 2024; Pavão J.,
2024; Reis et al., 2024; Aristizábal Correa et al., 2019; Astorga Aguilar &
Schmidt Fonseca, 2019; Serna Valdivia & Mejía Miranda, 2020; Batista et
al., 2020; Perafán del Campo et al., 2021; Saavedra et al., 2021; Flores Ccanto
et al., 2021; Flores Montaño et al., 2021; Barria et al., 2021; Ojeda Castro,
2021; Lozano Blasco et al., 2022; Lay Lisboa et al., 2022; Pérez Morón, 2022;
Ramírez et al., 2022; Álvarez, 2022; Badilla Quintana et al., 2022; Garcia et
al., 2022; Ramírez Plascencia et al., 2022; Capobianco Peña, 2023; Rioseco Pais
et al., 2023; Waller et al., 2023; Delgado Alarcón et al., 2023; Riega Virú et
al., 2023; Trejos Gil & Peláez Vélez, 2023; Iparraguirre Villanueva et al.,
2023; Cano et al., 2023; Álvarez et al., 2023; Guerrero et al., 2024b;
Heguiabehere & Pallero, 2024; Guerrero et al., 2024a; García, 2024; Riega
Virú et al., 2024; Gavilanes Molina & Merchán, 2022; Romero Izurieta et
al., 2021; Jiménez & Rivera, 2021; Roldán Molina et al., 2017; Olmo Parra
et al., 2016). At the same time, the concentration of a large number of citations in a
few highly influential articles suggests that the field still relies heavily on
certain landmark contributions.
There is a distinct
body of work emerging from developing countries in the Americas that is not
always captured in global studies: cybersecurity is being vigorously addressed
as a social and educational issue, linked to social media, cyberbullying, digital
coexistence, digital literacy, and inequalities. This perspective explicitly
incorporates issues of rights, child protection, and teacher training, and
opens up fertile ground for research that combines technical solutions with
public policies and concrete pedagogical practices.
Within this landscape,
Ecuador emerges as a rising player with a distinct thematic profile. Although
the number of publications is small, the works are published in high-visibility
journals and conference proceedings and focus on key topics for the region: ,
risk analysis methodologies, implementation of ISO standards in cybersecurity,
IT governance in the public sector, and an initial line of research on IoT
security (Jiménez & Rivera, 2021).
When considering the
average number of citations per document, performance is high, suggesting a
certain “efficiency” in national research output. However, clear gaps persist
in areas such as social media, cybersecurity education, and health data protection.
An analysis of co-authorship and publication sources also confirms that the
field is supported by a diverse network of collaborations.
The Iberian–Latin
American axis plays a central role, alongside intra-regional and Caribbean
clusters that, although still sparse, provide a foundation for moving toward
more stable research consortia. The journals that account for the bulk of this
output combine well-established titles in engineering and management with
specialized publications in education and the social sciences, reflecting the
distinctly interdisciplinary nature of the field and opening up various
channels for developing countries to disseminate their findings.
Finally, it is worth
noting that these conclusions are based on a limited sample and a single
database. Even so, the analytical framework developed offers a solid starting
point for deepening, updating, and expanding the study in future research,
incorporating new time periods, other databases, and greater detail in the
analysis of networks and themes.
For researchers,
policymakers, and stakeholders in the innovation system, the evidence presented
can serve as a basis for prioritizing investments, designing training programs,
and guiding national and regional cybersecurity strategies, with special attention
to the needs and capabilities of developing countries—and, in particular,
Ecuador.
..........................................................................................................
References
Aguilar Antonio, J. M. (2020). The Cybersecurity Gap in Latin America in the Context
of Global Threats. Journal of International Security Studies, 6(2), 17–43.
Aguilar, Antonio, J. M. (2021).
Cybersecurity challenges and opportunities in Latin America in the global
context of cyberthreats to national security and foreign policy. International
Studies, 53(198), 169–197.
Ajibola, S., & Cabral, P.
(2024). A systematic literature review and bibliometric analysis of semantic
segmentation models in land cover mapping. Remote Sens, 16(12):2222.
Aljohani, M., Furnell, S., Carpent,
X., Gervassis, N. Examining the Influence of Cultural Diversity on
Cybersecurity Culture. In: Praça, I., Bernardi, S.,
& Inácio, P. R. (eds). (2025). Cybersecurity. EICC 2025. Communications in
Computer and Information Science.
AlMalki, H. A., & Durugbo, C. M. (2023). Systematic review of institutional
innovation literature: toward a multi-level management model. Manag Rev Q 73,
731–785.
Alvarez, C., Hinojosa, C.,
Gonzalez, S., Rojas, L. “Towards Cybersecure Maritime Supply Chains in Latin
America and the Caribbean.” In: García Alcaraz, J. L., Manotas
Duque, D. F., González Ramírez, R. G., Chong Chong, M. G., & de Brito
Junior, I. (eds.) Supply
Chain Management Strategies and Methodologies. (2023). Lecture Notes in
Logistics. Springer, Cham.
Arar, T., & Yurdakul, G.
(2023). Bibliometric review on the business management field. Sci Ann Econ
Bus, 70(2), 301–334.
Aria, M., & Cuccurullo, C.
(2017). Bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive
science mapping analysis. Journal of Informetrics,
11(4), 959–975.
Aristizábal Correa, J. M., Marín Ramírez, L., & Álvarez
Salazar, J. (2019). Identification of security elements based on the C2M2
model for the textile manufacturing industry. Revista
Colombiana de Computación, 20(2), 56–67.
Astorga Aguilar, C., & Schmidt Fonseca, I. (2019). Dangers of Social Networks: How to Educate Our
Children on Cybersecurity. Revista Electrónica Educare, 23(3),
1–24.
Azevedo, Â.S., Oliveira, Í. M., & Dias, P. C. (2022). Parental Mediation of Internet Use: A Psychometric
Study with Portuguese Pre-adolescents. In: Mesquita, A., Abreu, A., Carvalho,
J.V. (eds.) Perspectives and Trends in Education and Technology. Smart
Innovation, Systems and Technologies, vol. 256. Springer, Singapore.
Badilla Quintana,
M. G., González López, G., Sandoval Henríquez, F. J., Moreno Fernández, O.,
Moreno Crespo, P., & Revuelta Domínguez, F. (2022). Psychometric
validation of an instrument to measure cybercoexistence
among Chilean youth during and after the pandemic. Aloma: Journal of
Psychology, Educational Sciences, and Sports, 40(1), 23–24.
Barria, C., Cordero, D., Galeazzi,
L., Acuña, A. Proposal of a Multi-standard Model for Measuring Business
Maturity Levels with Reference to Information Security Standards and Controls.
In Dzitac, I., Dzitac, S.,
Filip, F., Kacprzyk, J., Manolescu, MJ, & Oros, H. (eds.) Intelligent
Methods in Computing, Communications and Control. (2021). ICCCC 2020. Advances
in Intelligent Systems and Computing, vol. 1243. Springer,
Cham.
Batista, R., Villar, O., González Diez, H., & Milián
Núñez, V. (2020). Cultural
challenges of the malicious use of artificial intelligence in Latin American
regional balance. Proc. Eur. Conf. Impact Artif.
Intell. Robot., ECIAIR, 7–13.
Börner, K., Chen, C., & Boyack,
K. W. (2005). Visualizing knowledge domains. Annu. Rev. Inf. Sci. Technol.,
37(1), 179–255.
Cano, J. J., Almanza, A. R. The Information Security
Function and the CISO in Colombia: 2010–2020. In: Rocha, Á., Ferrás, C., & Ibarra, W. (eds.) Information Technology
and Systems. (2023). ICITS 2023. Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems, vol.
691. Springer, Cham.
Canuto, L., Santos, L., Vieira, L., Gonçalves, R., &
Rabadão, C. (2019). CoAP flow
signatures for the Internet of Things. Iberian Conference on Information
Systems and Technologies, CISTI, 1–6.
Capobianco Peña, J. (2023). The New
Era of Global Services: A Framework for Successful Enterprises in Business
Services and IT. Emerald Publishing Limited.
Carvajal Bernal, M. Guide to
Adopting a Cybersecurity Culture on Boards of Directors. In
Realpe Díaz, M. E., & Gómez Rodríguez, G. A. (Eds.). (2025). Cybersecurity at the Digital Frontier:
Challenges and Opportunities in New Business Technology Ecosystems. 157–196.
ESDEG Publishing.
Cobo, M. J., López Herrera, A. G., Herrera Viedma, E.,
& Herrera, F. (2011). Science
mapping software tools: Review, analysis, and cooperative study among tools. J
Am Soc Inf Sci Technol, 62(7), 1382–1402.
Cunha, J., Mealha,
F. Shedding light on the Portuguese health IT architecture. In Macedo, M., Kommers, P. (Eds.). MCCSIS - Multi-Conference on Computer
Science and Information Systems, & Proceedings (2018). International
Conference on e-Health, ICT, Society, Human Beings, Web-Based Communication,
and Social Media, 61–68.
De Guillén Gámez, F., Martínez García, I., Alastor, E.,
& Tomczyk, Ł. (2024). Digital
Competences in Cybersecurity of Teachers in Training. Computers in the
Schools, 41(3), 281–306.
Delgado Alarcón, A.I., Aguirre Anaya, E. A., Cortez Duarte,
N. A., & Gallegos García, G. (2023). Multilevel functional quantification of movements for
EDR in cloud-based and on-premises systems. Mexican International Conference
on Computer Science, ENC.
Israel’s National Cybersecurity
Authority. (2022a). Cybersecurity Methodology for Organizations: Version 2.0:
Best Practices in Cybersecurity.
Israel’s National Cybersecurity
Authority. (2022b). Defense Recommendations: The Internal Threat:
Organizational Adaptation in Cyberspace: Best Practices in Cybersecurity.
Donthu, N., Kumar, S., Mukherjee, D., Pandey, N., &
Lim, W. M.. (2021). How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: An overview and
guidelines. J Bus Res, 133, 285–296.
Duo, A., Basagoiti, R., Arrazola, P. J., Aperribay, J.,
& Cuesta, M. (2019). The
capacity of statistical features extracted from multiple signals to predict
tool wear in the drilling process. International Journal of Advanced
Manufacturing Technology, 102(5)8, 2133–2146.
Dzhalladova, I., Škapa, S., Novotná, V., & Babynyuk,
A. (2019). Design and analysis of a model for detecting information attacks in
computer networks. Economic Computation and Economic Cybernetics Studies and
Research, 53(3), 95–112.
Díaz-Cacho Medina, M., Falcón, P.,
Marcos Acevedo, J., & Pereira Domínguez, A. (2024). Educational project
for remote access to industrial networks. IEEE Global Engineering Education
Conference, EDUCON.
Flores Ccanto, F., Pozo, C., Flores Conislla, L. D., &
Adauto Medina, W. A. (2021). Challenges
of transformational leadership in organizational cybersecurity matters.
Revista Venezolana de Gerencia, 26(5), 417–429.
Flores Montaño, L. A., Herrera Lozada, J. C., Sandoval
Gutierrez, J., Vazquez Lopez, R., & Martinez Vazquez, D.. (2021). Cybersecurity in the Internet of Robotics
Things: An Experimental Platform. DYNA, 96, 540–545.
Garcia, M., De Mendonca, F., &
Albuquerque, R. (2022). Assessments of National Cyber Capability: A Brazilian
Perspective in Comparison with Spain. Iberian Conference on Information
Systems and Technologies (CISTI), 1–6.
García, J. A.. (2024). Securing
Clinical Data in Honduras: Exploring Cybersecurity Regulations and the Role of
Blockchain. JBBBE [Internet], 66, 105–116.
García, A. (2025). Bibliometric
Study on Cybersecurity. Mendeley Data, V1.
Gaspar, J., Cruz, T., Lam, C. T., & Simoes, P. (2023). Smart Substation Communications and Cybersecurity: A
Comprehensive Survey. IEEE Communications Surveys and Tutorials, 25(4),
2456–2493.
Gavilanes Molina, A., & Merchán, V. (2022). Information technology governance: an
analysis of the approach in Ecuador. Bulletin of Electrical Engineering and
Informatics, 11(1), 466–476.
Giménez Gualdo, A. M., Galán
Casado, D. A., & Moraleda, Á. (2021). Key
Competencies for Developing Cybercoexistence in
Schools: The “ICT Peer Support” Program. Education in the Knowledge Society,
22.
Giraldo Ríos, L. A. Artificial
intelligence and digital transformation in the field of cybersecurity. In
Realpe Díaz, M. E., & Gómez Rodríguez, G. A. (Eds.). (2025). Cybersecurity at the Digital Frontier:
Challenges and Opportunities in New Business Technology Ecosystems. 79–118.
ESDEG Publishing.
Gooder, V., & Lowe, L. (2024).
Implementation of a COVID-19 Closed/Open POD Partnership: A Creative
Professional Practice Exemplar for Occupational and Environmental Health
Nurses. *Workplace Health & Safety*, 72(5):196–201.
Goycochea Kcomt, S. P. (2025).
Behavioral Economics and Economic Growth in Times of a Pandemic. Lima
2020–2025. *Ciencia Latina: Multidisciplinary Scientific Journal*, 9(4),
1296–1311.
Guerrero, G., Betarte, G., & Campo, J. D.. (2024a). Process Mining-Based Assessment of Cyber
Range Trainings. Latin American Computer Conference
(CLEI), Buenos Aires, Argentina, 1–10.
Guerrero, G., Betarte, G., & Campo, J.D. (2024b). Tectonic: An Academic Cyber Range. IEEE Biennial
Congress of Argentina (ARGENCON), 1–8.
Heguiabehere, J., & Pallero, M. (2024). Cybersecurity and
Academia. IEEE Biennial Congress of Argentina (ARGENCON), 1–4.
Iparraguirre Villanueva, O., Obregon Palomino, L., Pujay
Iglesias, W., & Cabanillas Carbonell, M. (2023). Intelligent agent for
incident management. RISTI - Revista Ibérica de Sistemas e Tecnologias de
Informação, (e51), 99–115.
Jiménez, C., & Rivera, R.
(2021). IoT Cybersecurity: An Analysis of European Union Countries. RISTI
- Revista Ibérica de Sistemas e Tecnologias de Informação, E39, 461–476.
Jullian, O., Otero, B., Rodríguez, E., Gutierrez, N.,
Antona, H., & Canal, R. (2023). Deep-Learning-Based Detection for Cyberattacks in IoT Networks: A
Distributed Attack Detection Framework. Journal of Network and Systems
Management, 31(2).
Kononovich, I., Mayevskiy,
D., & Podobniy, R. (2015). Models of
Cybersecurity Systems with Delayed Response to Incidents. Inf
Math Methods Simul, 5(4), 339–346.
Lampropoulos, G., Larrucea, X., & Colomo-Palacios, R.
(2024). Digital Twins in Critical
Infrastructure. Information, 15, 454.
Lay Lisboa, S., Armijo Rodríguez, F., Calderón Olivares,
C., & Flores Acuña, J., Mercado Guerra, J. (2022). In-depth Analysis of Adultcentrism
in the Educational Field: Tensions in the Face of Childhood Protagonism. Revista
Electrónica Educare, 26(3), 463–489.
Leal, R., Santos, L., Vieira, L., Gonaalves, R., &
Rabadão, C. (2019). MQTT flow
signatures for the Internet of Things. 14th Iberian Conference on Information
Systems and Technologies (CISTI), Coimbra, Portugal, 1–5.
Leirmo, J. L. Cybersecurity Awareness in Critical Sectors –
a Systematic Literature Review. In Wang, Y. C., Chan, S. H., & Wang, Z. H.
(eds.). (2024). Flexible Automation and Intelligent Manufacturing:
Manufacturing Innovation and Preparedness for the Changing World Order. FAIM
2024. Lecture Notes in Mechanical Engineering. Springer, Cham.
Lena Acebo, F.J., Renés Arellano,
P., Hernández Serrano, M.J., & Caldeiro
Pedreira, M. C.. (2022). Knowing how to share and protect oneself: key factors
in digital cybercritical education for children. Profesional
de la Información, 31(6).
Linnenluecke, M. K., Marrone, M., & Singh, A. K.
(2020). Conducting systematic literature
reviews and bibliometric analyses. Aust J Manag, 45(2),
175–194.
Lozano Blasco, R., Quilez Robres, A., Rodriguez Araya, R.,
& Casanovas López, R. (2022). Addiction to New Technologies and Cyberbullying in the Costa Rican
Context. Educ. Sci., 12, 876.
Malanski, P. D., Dedieu, B., & Schiavi, S. (2021). Mapping the research
domains on work in agriculture: A bibliometric review from the Scopus
database. J Rural Stud, 81, 305–314.
Maldonado-Erazo, C. P., Álvarez García, J., del Río Rama,
M. C., & de la Durán Sánchez, A. (2021). Scientific Mapping on the Impact of Climate Change on
Cultural and Natural Heritage: A Systematic Scientometric
Analysis. Land, 10, 76.
Martins, M. A., & Bruno, L. C.
(2022). Monitoring Security Risks of Teleworker Devices in Hospital
Institutions. 17th Iberian Conference on Information Systems and Technologies
(CISTI), 1–6.
Martínez De Morentin, J. I.,
Lareki, A., & Altuna Urdin, J. (2021). Risks
Associated with Posting Content on Social Media. Ibero-American Journal of
Learning Technologies, 16(1), 77–83.
Mas, F. F. (2023). The World
Economic Forum and Productivity: Historical Foundations of Competitiveness.
*Perspectives on Economic and Legal Sciences*, 13(2), 201–212.
Matilde Espino, Y., & Valencia
Pérez, L. (2022). Bibliometric Analysis of Scientific Output on Cybersecurity
in Mexico (2015–2020). CIENCIA ergo-sum, 29(3).
Matos, T., & Guerreiro, J.
(2024). Development of a Remote Secure Online Voting System. In Universal
Access in Human-Computer Interaction: 18th International Conference, UAHCI
2024, Held as Part of the 26th HCI International Conference, 51–65.
Mejía Miranda, J. (Ed.). (2022).
Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Software Process
Improvement (CIMPS 2022): Applications in Software Engineering, Acapulco,
Guerrero, Mexico, October 19–21, 2022. IEEE.
Moldovyan, A., Moldovyan, D., & Moldovyan, N. (2024). Post-Quantum Public-Key Cryptoschemes on Finite Algebras. *Informatics and
Automation*, 23(4), 1246–1276. 10.15622/ia.23.4.12.
Monteiro, F., Simões, M., & Relva, I. C. (2023). Internet Addiction, Sleep Habits, and
Family Communication: The Perspectives of a Sample of Adolescents. Healthcare,
11, 3194.
Monzelo, P., & Nunes, S. (2019). The Role of the Chief
Information Security Officer (CISO) in Organizations. Proceedings of the
Conference of the Portuguese Association of Information Systems.
Monzelo, P., & Nunes, S. (2021). Information Security
Awareness and Its Impact on the CISO’s Responsibilities—A Study of the
Portuguese Environment. Journal of Information Systems Security, 17(2),
81–102.
Narasimhan, S., El-Farra, N. H.,
& Ellis, M.J. (2024). A Set-Based Control Mode Selection Approach for
Active Detection of False Data Injection Cyberattacks. Proceedings of the
American Control Conference, 1726–1731.
Nikolakopoulos, K., Mpelogianni, V., Groumpos, P.,
Kyriou, A., Ganas, A., Charalampopoulou, V., & Athanasopoulos, T. (2023).
Soft computing algorithms for infrastructure monitoring. Preliminary results
of the PROION project. Proc. SPIE 12786, Ninth International Conference on
Remote Sensing and Geoinformation of the Environment.
Nowersztern, A., Paz, S., Kagelmacher, D., Cabral Berenfus,
F., Libedinsky, P., Ribagorda, A., Tapiador, J., De Fuentes, J. M., &
González, L. (2021). Cybersecurity
training program for Latin America and the Caribbean.
Ojeda Castro, F. A. (2021). Origin,
Use, and Meaning of the Innovation Diamond. *Business Ethics and Leadership*,
5(4):48–58.
Olmo Parra, A. S., Sánchez Crespo,
L. E., Álvarez, E., Huerta, M., & Fernández Medina Paton, E. (2016).
Methodology for Dynamic Analysis and Risk Management under ISO 27001. IEEE
Latin America Transactions, 14(6), 2897–2911.
Onumo, A., Cullen, A., & Ullah-Awan, I. (2017). An empirical study of cultural dimensions and
cybersecurity development. In 2017 IEEE 5th International Conference on Future
Internet of Things and Cloud (FiCloud), 70–76.
Orosco Fabian, J. R. (2024).
Cybersecurity in higher education: a bibliometric review. Digital Journal of
Research in University Teaching, 18(2).
Oviedo, J., Rodríguez, M., Trenta,
A., Cannas, D., Natale, D., & Piattini, M.
(2024). ISO/IEC quality standards for AI engineering. *Computer Science
Review*, 54.
Pavão, J., Bastardo, R., Carreira, D., & Rocha, N. P.
(2024). Cyber-Resilience in the Context of
National Security and Defense. RISTI: Iberian Journal of Information Systems
and Technologies, 65, 359–371.
Perafán del Campo, E. A., Polo Alvis, S., Sánchez Acevedo,
M. E., & Miranda Aguirre, C.. (2021). State and Sovereignty in Cyberspace.
Via Inveniendi Et Iudicandi,
16(1).
Pico Saltos, R., Carrión Mero, P., Montalván Burbano, N., Garzás,
J., & Redchuk, A. (2021). Research Trends in
Career Success: A Bibliometric Review. Sustainability, 13, 4625.
Pranckutė, R. (2021). Web of Science (WoS)
and Scopus: The Titans of Bibliographic Information in Today’s Academic World.
Publications, 9(1), 12.
Purdon, L., Vera, F. Regional
Cybersecurity Approaches in Africa and Latin America. In Tikk, E., & Kerttunen, M. (eds.). (2020). Routledge Handbook of
International Cybersecurity.
Pérez Morón, J. (2022). Eleven
years of cyberattacks on Chinese supply chains in an era of cyber warfare: A
review and future research agenda. Journal of Asia Business Studies, 16(2),
371–395.
Ramírez Peña, M., Sánchez Sotano,
A. J., Pérez Fernández, V., Abad, F. J., & Batista Ponce, M. (2020).
Achieving a sustainable shipbuilding supply chain from an Industry 4.0
perspective. Journal of Cleaner Production, 244.
Ramírez, M., Rodríguez Ariza, L.,
Gómez Miranda, M. E., & Vartika, I. (2022). The Disclosure of
Cybersecurity Information by Listed Companies in Latin America—Proposal for a
Cybersecurity Disclosure Index. Sustainability, 14,
1390.
Ramírez Plascencia, D., Alonzo González, R. M., & Marín
Tapiero, J. I. (2022). Risks Faced
by Underage YouTubers Due to Legislative Gaps in Mexico. Revista
Mediterránea De Comunicación, 13(1), 65–77.
Raza, N., Moazeni, F., & Khazaei, J. (2024). A Holistic Cybersecurity Framework against False Data
Injection Attacks in Smart Water Distribution Systems Employing Auto-Encoders.
World Environmental and Water Resources Congress 2024, 1087–1098.
Raza, N., & Moazeni,
F. (2024). Chance-constrained vulnerability assessment of smart water
distribution systems against stealthy false data injection attacks.
International Journal of Critical Infrastructure Protection, 44.
Reis, C., Barbosa, A. R., Baptista,
M. A., Lopes, M., & Clain, S. (2024). A numerical methodology for
estimating site-specific cascading earthquake and tsunami dynamic loading on
critical infrastructure. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction,
100.
Riega Virú, Y., Nilupú Moreno, K., Salas Riega, J., & Ninaquispe Soto, M.. (2023). High school girls’ knowledge
of cybersecurity against social cybercrime. Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. on Adv.
Learn. Technol. Educ. Res., ICALTER.
Riega Virú, Y., Ninaquispe Soto, M., Salas Riega, J.,
Nilupú Moreno, K., Miguel Salas Riega, J., & Puga Ayala, E. (2024). Cybersecurity, State, and Law: A look from the
scientific literature. Proceedings of the LACCEI International
Multi-Conference on Engineering, Education, and Technology.
Rioseco Pais, M., Silva Quiroz, J., & Carrasco
Manríquez, C. (2023). Development
of Digital Competencies in Students at a Public, State-Owned Chilean
University with a Focus on Safety. Educ. Sci., 13, 710.
Roldán Molina, G., Almache Cueva, M., Rabado Silva, C.,
Yevseyeva, I., & Basto Fernandes, V. (2017). A Comparison of Cybersecurity Risk Analysis Tools.
*Procedia Comput. Sci.*, 121, 568–575.
Romero Izurieta, R., Caucha Morales, L. J., Toapanta
Toapanta, S. M., Mafla Gallegos, S. E., & Orizaga Trejo, J. A. (2021). Analysis of Information Security in Public
Organizations in Ecuador. International Conference on Computational Science
and Computational Intelligence (CSCI), Las Vegas, NV, USA, 823–829.
Saavedra, S., Llatas, J., & Armas Aguirre, J. (2021). Process Mining Model to Guarantee the Privacy of
Personal Data in the Healthcare Sector. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, 3037,
34–43.
Safarpour, H., Acero, P., &
Spearing, L. A. (2024). How Are Alaskan Water Systems Interdependent with
Other Infrastructure? A Systematic Literature Review. World Environmental and
Water Resources Congress 2024, 1039–1047.
Sainz Raso, J., Martin Gutierrez, S., Díaz, G., &
Castro, M. (2023). Security
Management on Arduino-Based Electronic Devices. IEEE Consumer Electronics
Magazine, 12(3), 72–84.
Salley, C., Mohammadi, N., &
Taylor, J. E. (2024). Protecting Critical Infrastructure from Disasters:
NLP-Based Automated Information Retrieval to Generate Hypothetical Cyberattack
Scenarios. Journal of Infrastructure Systems, 30(3).
Serna Valdivia, J. E., & Mejía
Miranda, J. (2020). Proposal for an Intelligent Agent for the Management and
Mitigation of Cybersecurity Risks in IoT Environments. 9th International
Conference on Software Process Improvement (CIMPS), 158–158.
Shevchenko, S., Zhdanova, Y.,
Shevchenko, H., Nehodenko, O., & Spasiteleva,
S.. (2023). Conflict Analysis in the “Subject-to-Subject” Security System.
CEUR Workshop Proceedings, 3421, 56–66.
Singh, V. K., Singh, P., Karmakar,
M., Leta, J., & Mayr, P. (2021). The journal coverage of Web of Science,
Scopus, and Dimensions: A comparative analysis. Scientometrics,
126, 5113–5142.
Sivianes, M., Arauz, T., Marín, E., & Maestre, J. M.
(2023). Reputation-Based Consensus on a
Secure Blockchain Network. In: Maleh, Y., Alazab,
M., Romdhani, I. (eds.) Blockchain for Cybersecurity
in Cyber-Physical Systems. Advances in Information Security, vol. 102.
Springer, Cham.
Solar, C. (2023). Cybersecurity
Governance in Latin America: States, Threats, and Alliances. Albany: State
University of New York Press.
Suárez García, Z., & Álvarez
García, D. (2023). Use of social networks in preadolescence: gender
differences. Psychology, Society and Education,
15(1), 30–39.
Sánchez Rodríguez, M. Á., Bermejo Higuera, J., Bermejo
Higuera, J. R., Sicilia Montalvo, J. A., & González Crespo, R. (2021). A systematic approach to analysis for assessing the
security level of cyber-physical systems in the electricity sector.
Microprocessors and Microsystems, 87.
Trejos Gil, C. A., & Peláez
Vélez, Y. (2023). Cybercrimes Involving Minors on the Facebook Social Network:
A Systematic Literature Review. Nuevo Derecho, 19(32).
Valente, J. (2021). From Online
Platforms to Digital Monopolies: Technology, Information, and Power.
Valladarez González, V. I., & Cadena Martínez, R.
(2025). Big Data Techniques and
Methodologies for Analyzing Cybercrime Behavior During and After the Pandemic.
Ciencia Latina: Multidisciplinary Scientific Journal, 9(3),
5952–5970.
van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2010). Software survey: VOSviewer,
a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics,
84(2):523–538.
Von Solms, R., & Van Niekerk,
J. (2013). Cybercrime in the Digital Economy. Computers & Security, 38,
97–102.
Waller, L., Johnson, S. C.,
Satchell, N., Gordon, D., Kirkpatrick Daley, G. L., Reid, H., Fender, K.,
Llewellyn, P., Smyle, L., & Linton, P. (2023). Woe is the Dark Web: The
Main Challenges That Governments of the Commonwealth Caribbean Will Face in Combating
Dark Web-Facilitated Criminal Activities. Transforming Government: People,
Process, and Policy, 17(1), 87–100.
Wallin, J. A. (2005). Bibliometric
methods: Pitfalls and possibilities. Basic Clin Pharmacol
Toxicol, 97(5), 261–275.
Wilkinson, D., Hanley, E., & Knijnenburg, B. P. (2024). A Comparative Analysis of
Legislative Protections for Online Safety in the Global South: A Case Study of
the Caribbean. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 8(CSCW2),
1–29.
Xu, C., Zhang, C., & Xu, J.
(2020). Verifiable Cloud Computing. In: Shen, X., Lin, X., & Zhang, K.
(eds.), Encyclopedia of Wireless Networks. Springer, Cham.
Yevseiev, S., Pohasii,
S., Milevskyi, S., Milov, O., Melenti,
Y., Grod, I., Berestov, D., Fedorenko, R., & Kurchenko, O. (2021). “Development of a Method for
Assessing the Security of Cyber-Physical Systems Based on the Lotka–Volterra
Model,” Eastern-European Journal of Enterprise Technologies, 5(9), 30–47.
Zupic, I. (2015). Čater, T.
“Bibliometric methods in management and organization.” Organ Res Methods,
18(3), 429–472.
Álvarez, C. L. (2022). Standard for
triggering the obligation to report significant cyber incidents in public
institutions. Revista Chilena de Derecho y
Tecnología, 11(2), 183–210.