Research Productivity and Network Visualization on Digital Evidence: A Bibliometric Study

References

• Adams, C. W. 2011. Spoliation of electronic evidence: Sanctions versus advocacy. Michigan Telecommunications and Technology Law Review 18 (1):1–60.
   Google Scholar
• Alvarez-Melgarejo, M., and M. L. Torres-Barreto. 2018. Resources and capabilities from their very outset: Bibliometric comparison between scopus and the web of science. Review of European Studies 10 (4):1–15. doi:https://doi.org/10.5539/res.v10n4p1.
   Google Scholar
• Anyebe, P. 2019. Appraisal of admissibility of electronic evidence in legal proceedings in Nigeria. Journal of Law, Policy and Globalization 92:1–12.
   Google Scholar
• Baslar, Y. 2020. Collection and storage of electronic evidence. Hacettepe Hukuk Fakultesi Dergisi 10 (1):77–107.
   Google Scholar
• Biasiotti, M. 2017. Proposed electronic evidence exchange across the european union. Digital Evidence and Electronic Signature Review 14:1–12.
   Google Scholar
• Cameron, A., and N. Melanson. 2010. Obtaining electronic evidence from non-parties. Advocates’ Quartely 36 (4):470–508.
   Google Scholar
• Carroll, O. L., S. K. Brannon, and T. Song. 2008. Managing large amounts of electronic evidence. United States Attorney’s Bulletin 56 (1):46–59.
   Google Scholar
• Castrillo, De Urbano E. (2011). The legal regulation of electronic evidence: Pending necessity. Digital Evidence and Electronic Signature Law Review 8: 25–32. doi:https://doi.org/10.14296/deeslr.v8i0.1952.
   Google Scholar
• Chankova, D., and R. Voynova. 2018. Towards new European regulation for handling electronic evidence. US-China Law Review 15 (3):121–29.
   Google Scholar
• Degani, M., and L. Marion. 2016. Making the most of your statutory electronic evidence toolbox. United States Attorney’s Bulletin 64 (3):56–63.
   Google Scholar
• Dhawan, S. M., B. M. Gupta, and B. Elango. 2021. Global cyber security research output (1998-2019): A scientometrics analysis. Science & Technology Libraries 40 (2):172–80. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/0194262X.2020.1840487.
   Google Scholar
• Feldman, J. E. 2008. Top things to do when collecting electronic evidence. GPSolo 25 (2):28–29.
   Google Scholar
• Groysberg, A. A. 2019. Electronic evidence in the system of civil law proceedings. Herald of Civil Procedure 2019 (2):56–76.
   Google Scholar
• Hanlin, D. 2014. Discuss the suitable rule of electronic evidence. US-China Law Review 11 (11):1530–37.
   Google Scholar
• Haq, I. U. 2021. Science & Technology Libraries: A Bibliometric Analysis from 1980 to 2020. Science & Technology Libraries 1–17. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/0194262X.2021.1926400.
   Google Scholar
• Harthai, S. J. 2001. Five W’s of electronic evidence. The Family Advocate 24 (2):6–7.
   Google Scholar
• Hofman, J. 2006. Electronic Evidence in Criminal Cases. South African Journal of Criminal Justice 19 (3):257–75.
   Google Scholar
• Insa, F. 2007. The Admissibility of Electronic Evidence in Court (A.E.E.C.): Fighting against High-Tech Crime—Results of a European Study. Journal of Digital Forensic Practice 1 (4):285–89. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/15567280701418049.
   Google Scholar
• Justiss, L. K. 1993. bibliometric study of texas law reviews. Law Library Journal 85 (2):407–08.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kancauskiene, J. 2019. Computer forensics and electronic evidence in criminal legal proceedings: Lithuania’s experience. Digital Evidence and Electronic Signature Law Review 16:11–24. doi:https://doi.org/10.14296/deeslr.v16i0.5015.
   Google Scholar
• Kumar, D., and B. Singh. 2020. Contributions of indian authors in the subject category law of the web of science collection: Bibliometric analysis. BRICS Law Journal 7 (2):148–2. doi:https://doi.org/10.21684/2412-2343-2020-7-2-148-156.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leroux, O. 2004. Legal admissibility of electronic evidence. International Review of Law Computers & Technology 18 (2):193–220.
   Google Scholar
• Liu, B. 2015. Problems on the admissibility of electronic evidence in the Chinese context. Digital Evidence and Electronic Signature Law Review 12:38–44. doi:https://doi.org/10.14296/deeslr.v12i0.2216.
   Google Scholar
• MacDonald, K. I., and V. Dressler. 2018. Using citation analysis to identify research fronts: A case study with the internet of things. Science & Technology Libraries 37 (2):171–86. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/0194262X.2017.1415183.
   Google Scholar
• McLauchlan, P. A. 2013. Marine electronic evidence discovery and admission.Currents: International Trade Law Journal21 (2): 21–37.
   Google Scholar
• Mohan, B. S., and M. Kumbar. 2020. Scientometric analysis and visualization of solar physics research in India. Science & Technology Libraries 39 (2):189–209. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/0194262X.2020.1715321.
   Google Scholar
• Organ, B. 2005. Discoverability of electronic evidence. Syracuse Science & Technology Law Reporter 2005:1–17.
   Google Scholar
• Patel, P., and A. Bhatt. 2021. Growth and impact of scholarly contributions for SP University: A bibliometric analysis. Library Philosophy and Practice (E-journal):4613. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/4613
   Google Scholar
• Patel, S. S., T. Dharmendra., A. Bhatt, and C. Shanti. 2021. Web visibility and research productivity of NIRF ranked universities in India: A webometric study. Library Philosophy and Practice (E-journal). 5326. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/5326
   Google Scholar
• Ram, S. 2020. Coronavirus research trends: A 50–Year bibliometric assessment. Science & Technology Libraries 39 (2):210–26. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/0194262X.2020.1742270.
   Google Scholar
• Trigkas, N. 2017. The authenticity of electronic evidence: First steps toward improvement. Edinburgh Student Law Review 3 (2):20–27.
   Google Scholar
• Tsvetkova, A. 2018. Electronic evidence in bulgaria one step further, one step back. Digital Evidence and Electronic Signature Law Review 15:60–69. doi:https://doi.org/10.14296/deeslr.v15i0.4896.
   Google Scholar
• Wardani, K.D, Soewondo, S.S. and Judhariksawan (2020). Electronic evidence in criminal procedural law. Journal of Law, Policy and Globalization 104: 1–5. doi:https://doi.org/10.7176/JLPG/104-01.
   Google Scholar
• Widianingsih, I., C. Paskarina, R. Riswanda, and P. B. Putera. 2021. EvolutionarynStudy of watershed governance research: A bibliometric analysis. Science & Technology Libraries 1–19. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/0194262X.2021.1926401.
   Google Scholar
• Wortzman, S., and S. Nickle. 2009. Obtaining relevant electronic evidence. Advocates’ Quarterly 36 (2):226–28.
   Google Scholar
• Zerbes, I. 2015. Legal issues of transnational exchange of electronic evidence in criminal proceedings. European Criminal Law Review 5 (3):304–31. doi:https://doi.org/10.5771/2193-5505-2015-3-304.
   Google Scholar
• Zupic, I., and T. Carter. 2015. Bibliometric methods in management and organization. Organizational Research Methods 18 (3):429–72. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428114562629.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar