Abstract
Background: Research on digital resilience and cybersecurity among adolescents has grown significantly. Yet adolescents remain underexplored, and studies focus narrowly on coping rather than broader resilience factors. This study addresses these gaps by examining the evolution and scope of digital resilience research.
Objectives: The study aimed to examine the development of digital resilience research over time. It sought to identify emerging themes and explore opportunities for interdisciplinary collaboration, with particular attention to gaps concerning adolescents.
Method: A bibliometric approach was employed to analyse 474 documents retrieved from the Scopus database.
Results: The findings revealed a clear growth trajectory in digital resilience research, with thematic concerns including privacy, social media, cyberbullying, cybersecurity, machine learning, fake news, digital competence, digital resilience and awareness. Importantly, a lack of focused research on adolescence was highlighted as a significant gap.
Conclusion: The study underscores the need for an interdisciplinary approach including recovery capability, knowledge acquisition, adaptation and autonomy-based strategies, to ensure the safety of children and adolescents amid increasing online risks.
Contribution: This study broadens the conceptualisation of digital resilience beyond coping strategies and clarifies its definition. By mapping the field’s intellectual structure, the study fills a theoretical and scientific gap and aligns with the journal’s focus on cybersecurity and digital safety.
Keywords: digital resilience; cyber safety; cybersecurity; adolescents; bibliometric analysis; science mapping; research trends.
Introduction
The increased use of digital technologies, such as smartphones, iPhones, tablets and related social media, has become the new norm in higher education. Several changes, including new challenges, have made it easier to navigate cyberspace safely and build digital literacy and resilience. This has affected adolescents’ developmental tasks in schools (Lee & Hancock 2023; Pangrazio & Cardozo-Gaibisso 2020; Qi & Yang 2024a). Technological advancements have undoubtedly enhanced people’s lives, requiring new literacy skills to navigate and leverage the benefits of modern technologies; however, these skills have also indirectly increased exposure to online risks (Vissenberg, D’Haenens & Livingstone 2022).
Overuse of online technologies increases the likelihood of developing undesirable online behaviours, such as excessive social media use, online gambling, and, in the worst cases, dread scrolling and doom surfing (Sharma et al. 2022). Additionally, individuals may experience severe mental health problems due to problematic online technology use, and unhealthy social media interactions can also result in illicit conduct like cybercrime and cyberbullying (Sharma et al. 2022). People face many challenges daily in the digital age, ranging from online threats and false information to digital addiction and privacy issues (Wickström 2024).
Moreover, the rise and use of deepfake news, videos and images created through artificial intelligence (AI) technologies leave society with a sense of uncertainty and misinformation, necessitating higher-level critical thinking skills (Soetekouw & Angelopoulos 2024). Notably, even the most advanced tools, expertise and technology are seldom sufficient to prevent or even predict cybercrime (Ng et al. 2022). Additionally, protection against cybercrimes requires careful consideration, as defensive behaviours, such as using up-to-date antivirus, spyware and adware software, are not equally effective across all forms of online crime, including romance scams, cyberbullying and online abuse (Ng et al. 2022). New types of coping mechanisms in the digital setting have thus emerged, with the prospect of reducing the risks of negative interactions through ethical behaviour and attitudes, known as digital resilience (Sun et al. 2022). Therefore, technological developments necessitate the ability to assess potential cyberspace problems to enhance safety and resilience through a shared society and coordinated actions (Ng et al. 2022). Resilience is widely recognised as the most prevalent psychological pattern in dealing with challenging life circumstances (Valiente et al. 2021).
To ensure that individuals and societies thrive in this digital age, it is essential to understand and improve digital resilience (Wickström 2024). The emphasis is on equipping teenagers with skills for learning, active participation and the effective use of technology while ensuring safety and protection, with digital resilience as a crucial competency. Digital resilience is seen as an important protective factor for people’s online safety and for mitigating the harmful effects of dangerous online experiences (Sun et al. 2022; Vissenberg et al. 2022). Digital resilience helps individuals recognise and manage risks and threats encountered when interacting with others, exploring or working online, and is essential for addressing cyber challenges (Sun et al. 2022). However, the literature on young people’s, especially adolescents’, digital resilience, literacy and well-being in relation to harmful online experiences remain sparse (Vissenberg et al. 2022).
Rationale and context
Building on the introduction’s overview of digital challenges, this section contextualises the study’s rationale by examining how cybersecurity behaviour, digital resilience and adolescent vulnerability converge, warranting a focused bibliometric investigation. Cybersecurity behaviour plays a key role in fostering digital resilience and online safety practices. To comprehend the factors that affect online behaviour, researchers utilise behavioural theories such as the theory of planned behaviour (TPB). From a TPB perspective, findings indicate that comprehending the repercussions of online risks is crucial for educating individuals about online safety (Alanazi, Freeman & Tootell 2022). To meet the challenges and online dangers to which individuals, including teenagers, are susceptible, it is crucial to have digital resilience (Sharma et al. 2022).
This suggests that the capacity for resilience utilises technological concepts to develop adaptive skills for managing unforeseen disruptions and is vital in cyberspace for bolstering cybersecurity (Bahmanova & Lace 2024). Digital resilience can serve as an effective protective mechanism for individuals who may face online risks, especially adolescents (Pan et al. 2024; Qi & Yang 2024a). Their degree of digital resilience will probably have a major impact on adolescents’ success in the digital age, as well as on their social interactions, academic performance and overall life satisfaction (Qi & Yang 2024a). Digital resilience is usually addressed in the context of both personal and organisational competence (Fischer et al. 2023; Mahmood, Chadhar & Firmin 2024). This research utilises the individual capability perspective to examine how research has advanced in the area of digital resilience. It is on this premise that the study investigates the mapping of scientific production and conceptual structure among adolescents in digital resilience and cybersecurity based on thematic developments and trajectories, and prolific scholars.
Research questions
This study is guided by the following research questions:
RQ1: How has digital resilience research grown in terms of scientific output and annual publication trends over time?
RQ2: What thematic developments and trajectories characterise digital resilience research, particularly concerning adolescents?
RQ3: What are the patterns of scholarly collaboration, affiliation and citation impact within the digital resilience research field?
RQ4: What opportunities exist for interdisciplinary collaboration to advance digital resilience research focused on adolescents?
Research methods and design
The method used in this study is the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) approach, based on bibliometric mapping. The PRISMA approach has become more interesting in research practices, especially in science mapping (Aria & Cuccurullo 2017; Song et al. 2019), hence its consideration in this study. Identifying lacunae is made possible by bibliometrics (Schadl & Todeschini 2015). The published academic works on digital resilience retrieved from the Scopus-indexed database were subjected to a thorough bibliometric analysis. As shown in Figure 1, the steps used to do the bibliometric mapping analysis in this study are presented in the following subsections: data collection, extraction, and cleaning; data analysis and synthesis; findings; and discussion.
 |
FIGURE 1: Bibliometric steps used in this study. |
|
Data extraction and cleaning
The data for analysis were retrieved from the Scopus-curated database, which offers better coverage of citation databases in the literature (Waltman 2016). The combination of operators, filters and search string is shown in the left-side block of Figure 1. The OR Boolean operator was used to perform a compound search and concatenation. In addition to the keywords searched, the search string used asterisk (*) wildcards to ensure that all potential keywords were included in the results. The search term “digital resilien*,” for example, produced results that included “digital resilience,” “digital resiliency,” or “digital resilient,” among other terms.
The dataset, consisting of 483 documents in comma-separated values (CSV) file format, was extracted from the Scopus database. No duplicates were found. After reviewing the keywords of the documents and examining the abstracts of those whose keywords showed a lack of alignment with the research key terms and focus, 9 documents were removed, leaving 474 for analysis in this study. Nine of the documents were removed because their content was not related to the study’s focus and instead concerned supply chain cybersecurity. Table 1 presents the rationale for terms used in search strings in this study.
| TABLE 1: Search terms and inclusion rationale in the digital resilience study. |
Data analysis
Bibliometric analysis was conducted using Bibliometrix (version 4.2.1) through the Biblioshiny web interface version 4.4.3. Statistical analysis was performed using the R version 4.4.0 with the Bibliometrix package (Naples, Italy) (Aria & Cuccurullo 2017). Using algorithms for statistical and science mapping analysis, this software offers a suite of tools for quantitative bibliometric studies. Additionally, it has Biblioshiny, a web-based interface that enables the import of data from Scopus or Web of Science databases in CSV, BibTeX or plain text formats. The software does not facilitate the integration of data produced from separate databases for this investigation (Agbo, Oyelere & Suhonen 2021). Authors use acronyms, synonymous phrases and spelling or term variants, which may limit the ability to generalise the research findings across research trends (Mohsen, Fu & Ho 2017).
Therefore, different variations of authors’ keywords were reviewed and combined into corresponding single words (Mak et al. 2024) and uploaded into the Biblioshiny web interface as synonyms in the analysis of the dataset, including ‘cyber security’, ‘cyber-security’ used as ‘cybersecurity’, ‘cyber safety’, ‘cyber-safety’ as ‘cyber safety’, and ‘COVID-19 pandemic’ as ‘COVID-19’. Also, full terms were used in place of abbreviations, including AI and natural language processing (NLP). This enabled the Bibliometrix application to provide a consolidated report on terms with multiple forms or abbreviations.
Data synthesis
Table 2 provides an overview of dataset information, including document contents, authors and author collaborations. There were 474 documents in the dataset, which covered the years December 2006 to January 2025. The focus of the published materials was scoped using 1302 author keywords (DE). Individual authors generated 82 documents out of 1275. Among the document kinds are 53 books, 54 book chapters, 88 conference papers and 279 articles.
| TABLE 2: Primary data and a synopsis of the synthesised data. |
Ethical considerations
Ethical clearance to conduct this study was obtained from the Department of Applied Information Systems Research Ethics Committee of the University of Johannesburg (Ref. No. 2025AIS003).
Results
The findings are organised in alignment with the study’s research questions: (1) research growth by publication count and citation trends (RQ1); (2) scholarship, affiliations and citation networks (RQ3); (3) thematic focus and evolution (RQ2); and (4) country-focused themes and collaboration patterns (RQ4).
Research growth (RQ1)
On average, digital resilience research accounts for 8.84% of scientific output from December 2006 to January 2025, as measured by the Bibliometrix R package shown in Table 2. Table 3 shows that one book, published in 2006, discusses burgeoning issues, types of cybercrime, disputes and remedies related to the Internet’s effects on society (Schell 2006). No contribution was made in 2007; however, three research works were published in 2008, which focused on the rise of cyberbullying using instant messaging, e-mail, chat rooms and other digital messaging platforms due to advancements in computer and mobile technology (Kowalski, Limber & Agatston 2008; Mason 2008; Shariff 2008). By recognising the risks of the Internet and cyberbullying, these studies laid a foundation, underscoring the need for resilience in society and possibly marking the inception of digital resilience research. In 2009, five research works were published, paving the way for digital resilience research with a focus on information systems security effectiveness (Coronado et al. 2009), online piracy (Fisk 2009), website filtering (Stol et al. 2009), cyberbullying (Shariff 2009) and online information privacy (Chai et al. 2009). Of interest is Chai et al.’s (2009) study on digital information privacy-influencing factors, which surveyed 285 pre-teens and early teens and found that children’s perceptions of the importance of information privacy and their self-efficacy influenced their information privacy behaviours on the Internet.
| TABLE 3: Digital resilience research growth. |
The years 2007 and 2010 were unproductive, while 2006 had only one article, 2008 had three, and 2011 saw eight research articles – signalling the growing interest in digital resilience research.
As build-up themes in digital resilience research, these studies expanded the scope of research to include Internet use safety and co-regulation, cyber risks, self-disclosure (SD) technologies, and factors like online privacy, cyber ethics, cyber safety, cybercriminal psychology and cybercrime (Kirwan & Power 2013; Lowry, Cao & Everard 2011; Marsden 2011; Martin & Rice 2011; Nigam & Collier 2011; Pusey & Sadera 2011; Slovak & Singer 2011; Valcke et al. 2011).
The results show a year-by-year alternating growth pattern: there was no growth in 2012, only 5 publications were produced, but it increased to 11 in 2013, demonstrating growing interest in digital resilience research. Publications increased steadily in 2014 with 16 works, but dropped to 15 in 2015. This alternating growth pattern persisted, but in 2019 and 2020, there was remarkable growth, with 32 and 51 articles, respectively, following a resurgence of interest in 2018 with 25 articles published. The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic lockdown may have spurred this newfound interest and growth, as people turned to cyberspace for social and professional needs (Dockery & Bawa 2020; Kaufmann, Straganz & Bork-Hüffer 2020). However, the research tempo slowed down in 2021, with 48 articles, as people’s lives readjusted to hybrid social habits post-COVID-19 (Alam, Rampes & Ma 2021; Smrdelj & Lenarčič 2024). Articles increased impressively to 54 and 75 in 2022 and 2023, respectively, but 2024 saw a low article publication (71) – indicating readjustment to year-by-year alternating growth. Only five articles had been recorded in January 2025. Given the steady growth trend, digital resilience research will continue to expand, as shown by the geometric progression of annual scientific output in Figure 2.
 |
FIGURE 2: Annual scientific production of digital resilience in cybersecurity. |
|
Scholarship and affiliations (RQ3)
Table 4 shows the top 20 most cited references based on local and global citations. Among the analysed articles, Pusey and Sadera’s (2011) work on cyber ethics, cyber safety and cybersecurity, published in the Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, received 20 local citations and 60 global citations and was the most impactful in the field of digital resilience. Also, Chai et al.’s (2009) work on online information privacy, published in the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) Transactions on Professional Communication, had 16 local citations versus 93 global citations and had a significant impact.
| TABLE 4: Top 20 most cited references based on local and global citations. |
Von Solms and Von Solms’ (2014) publication, with 10 local citations and 29 global citations, offers an informative guide to enable primary school teachers in Africa to teach cyber safety basics through a set of easy-to-use, self-explanatory and publicly available online video cartoons that can be used to discuss and engage learners in cyber safety principles. Rahman et al. (2020) article on cybersecurity education had 9 local citations and 71 global citations and was also influential.
With 7 local citations and corresponding global citations of 21, 348 and 14, respectively, other noteworthy works include Kritzinger’s (2016) work on cyber safety within schools; Lowry et al.’s (2011) study on privacy concerns; and Martin and Rice’s (2012) work on children’s cyber safety and protection. In this cohort, Kritzinger’s (2016) study focuses on the state of cyber safety awareness among South African teachers and pupils and suggests short-term initiatives, such as using posters, to raise awareness. Lowry et al. (2011) examined connections between the use of SD technology and culture and found that cross-cultural dimensions are important predictors of online awareness and privacy concerns, attitudes towards, intentions to use, and actual use of SD in instant messaging. Interestingly, Lowry et al.’s (2011) work has a high global impact (348 citations) versus local impact (7 citations), indicating more influence on other research fields but less so in the digital resilience field, versus the locally impactful work of Pusey and Sadera’s (2011) – 20 local citations. Therefore, citation results show heightened interest in and the influence of publications, as well as interdisciplinary opportunities, which will enhance the digital resilience research field.
The article titles can be summarised into five niche research areas of interest regarding adolescents’ digital resilience. The first theme focused on cyber safety with variations such as awareness, culture and gamification, education, interventions, policy, stakeholder perspective and digital skills inequality (Dodel & Mesch 2018; Kritzinger 2015, 2016, 2017a, 2017b; Martin & Rice 2012; Valcke et al. 2011; Von Solms & Von Solms 2014). Cybersecurity is the second research area, alongside education and teacher preparedness (Pusey & Sadera 2011; Rahman et al. 2020). The third niche focused on digital citizenship with technology perception, education and professional development (Martin et al. 2019, 2020, 2022). The fourth area is privacy in conjunction with youth behaviour, co-design, digital transparency and SD behaviour. The fifth area focused on social media literacy development and privacy behaviour (Heravi et al. 2018; Pangrazio & Cardozo-Gaibisso 2020).
Thematic focus of the field (RQ2)
This study also examined how the topics that scholars in the field of digital resilience discuss have evolved over time by analysing the authors’ keywords, temporal occurrence frequencies, co-occurrence networks, trends and thematic maps. Trending topics and scholarly focus within a field are identified by analysing publication keywords (Chen & Xiao 2016; Song et al. 2019). This exercise provides an overview of a scientific discipline, while the thematic progression map of scientific production organises the study topics into basic and motor themes (Chen & Xiao 2016; Melega 2022).
Figure 3 illustrates the development and connections among topics categorised into three analytic periods, spanning from December 2006 to January 2025. The line thickness indicates the importance of the relationships between the keywords, and the block size indicates the importance of the topic. Interestingly, only two topics were discussed most frequently during the 2006–2011 period: the Internet and privacy. In the second period (2012–2017), the Internet topic was maintained from the first period and, with a weaker connection, merged with the cybercrime topic. While the privacy topic has a strong connection to the security theme. Six additional topics emerged in the second period, including cyber safety, information privacy, social engineering, e-safety, protection motivation theory and awareness, indicating an exploration of digital resilience research.
 |
FIGURE 3: Evolution of themes in the digital resilience field. |
|
There is a significant connection between the research topics of the second and third periods (2018–2025) because closely related themes fall under multiple research categories. Three of the second period themes – cyber safety, awareness and cybercrime – merged into more than one theme in the third period. The cyber safety theme was strongly connected to cybersecurity, but showed a weak connection to sexting. The awareness topic also merged with cybersecurity and privacy. While the cybercrime theme progressed to the third period, it also blended with the sexting topic. The security theme merged with a strong connection to the privacy theme only; the information privacy and the protection motivation theory themes merged into the privacy concerns topic; and the social engineering, e-safety and Internet themes merged with the digital competence theme with strong connections. The number of themes was reduced to six, three themes fewer than in the second period, indicating a stabilisation of basic terms in the digital resilience research field.
Cybercrime and sexting received less attention than digital competence, privacy concerns and cybersecurity, which were the most discussed themes and exceeded those of the preceding period, yet still indicated the development of basic themes in the digital resilience research field. Overall, these observations indicate the evolving trend of themes in the digital resilience field and its interdisciplinary nature, including digital competence, cybersecurity and sexting.
Figure 4 displays the dynamic view of keyword occurrences over time. Every coloured line represents a keyword, and the frequency of that keyword when the dataset was retrieved is included in parentheses. The field of digital resilience has gradually expanded in topics during the past 18 years, even though no new terms emerged in 2010, 2018, 2019, and 2021–2025. The terms discussed in 2009 include privacy, cybercrime and the Internet. The fact that privacy, cybercrime and the Internet first surfaced in 2009 indicates that these topics were essential in the development of the digital resilience field. Cybercrime, cyber safety, cyberbullying and security themes emerged in discussions of digital resilience in 2011.
 |
FIGURE 4: Dynamic view of the keywords used by authors over time. |
|
The terms ‘cyber threats’ and ‘children and education’ emerged in 2012 and 2013, respectively, indicating a research focus on educational aspects and minor groups. In 2014, awareness, online safety and digital literacy were included in discussions of digital resilience research; in 2015, digital citizenship; and in 2016, information security and adolescents, showing research interests yet focused on minor groups. In 2017, social media was only introduced into the discussion of digital resilience research. In 2020, the terms COVID-19, privacy concerns and AI were added, marking the end of new-term additions in the digital resilience field. Notably, the terms adolescents, AI, cyber threats and digital literacy had the lowest occurrence frequency (8), while cybersecurity (55), cyber safety (37), cyberbullying (33) and privacy (32) were the most discussed terms in 2024–2025.
Common themes and potential avenues for future research can be suggested by co-occurrence networks (Napasti et al. 2025). Keyword relationships on the network of published terms that co-occur in digital resilience are visualised in Figure 5. Research on cyber safety, education, curricula and awareness channels, as well as topics such as cybercrime, cyber ethics, cyber threats, gender, children, adolescents, youth, parents, online safety and digital resilience, is reflected in the cyber security cluster. The goals of the research developed within the cybersecurity network cluster were to instil awareness and digital resilience in children, youth and parents, with a focus on gender, and to promote education on cybersecurity, online safety and cyber safety. The cybersecurity node also links with the COVID-19 node, which is interconnected with online and higher education nodes.
The cluster of cyberbullying displays research that focused on social media, sexting, child pornography, the Internet and NLP using machine learning as interventions. Through the link between cyber safety and cyberbullying nodes, cybersecurity relates to the cyberbullying research cluster. The privacy cluster focuses on terms such as security, safety and the Internet, which relate to the cyberbullying research cluster through the social media node. The privacy node also links with the cybersecurity node and the privacy calculus node. Furthermore, the privacy calculus node links to privacy concerns and information disclosure, demonstrating engagement with privacy calculus theory to address these issues. The privacy calculus node links to the information disclosure node, which, in turn, links to the privacy paradox node, indicating research interests in privacy–paradoxical behaviour in information disclosure.
The information disclosure node further links to the awareness node in the cybersecurity cluster. The teacher education cluster includes digital competence and e-safety, linking to the cybersecurity cluster through the teacher education and digital competence nodes. The information security node links to the self-efficacy node, which also links with the protection motivation theory, signifying research on self-efficacy through the lens of the protection motivation theory. The information security node also links to the cybersecurity node, indicating research efforts in addressing information security from the perspectives of self-efficacy and protection motivation theory. The teachers’ node links to the cybersecurity node and digital literacy, which links to digital citizenship, while digital citizenship and digital literacy are also connected to the cyber safety node. These links indicate research on the need for teacher training that includes digital literacy and citizenship. These findings outline research directions and growth, the diversity of research areas and the interdisciplinarity of the digital resilience field.
The top 20 trending themes are shown in Figure 6, signifying their influence on digital resilience. From 2018 to 2023, the cybersecurity topic trended, with 55 occurrences, making it a major topic of discussion in the field, along with cyberbullying (33 occurrences) and awareness (18 occurrences) in 2020. In 2019, cyber safety (37 occurrences) and digital literacy and cyber threats each had 8 occurrences.
The privacy topic has been discussed from 2019 to 2023, peaking at 32 occurrences in 2022 as a key topic of discussion in the research area. Other topics that peaked in 2022 include social media (23 occurrences) and children (19 occurrences). The cybercrime theme trended between 2014 and 2023, peaking at 20 occurrences in 2021; other themes included privacy concerns (11 occurrences) and AI (8 occurrences).
The digital resilience theme began trending in 2023, peaking at six occurrences in 2024, and NLP in 2023, while youth and child pornography had five occurrences, respectively, in 2014.
The thematic map of subjects contributing to the development of the digital resilience research field is visualised in Figure 7. Based on themes of centrality and density, the thematic map is divided into four quadrants (Q1–Q4). Driving themes or motor themes, are represented in the upper-right quadrant (Q1), indicating that they are well developed and important to the subject. Although they are less developed, the underlying themes (basic themes) in the lower-right quadrant (Q4) are just as important. The upper-left quadrant (Q2) contains specialised themes, also known as niche themes, which are associated with other, less central issues and are of lesser importance to the main research field. Lastly, themes that are transitioning or of marginal prominence are found in the lower-left quadrant (Q3). Each node clusters related themes, and only the topmost themes in each cluster are shown as labels, abbreviated when they overlap.
The first quadrant (Q1) displays well-developed subjects in the discourse of the digital resilience field, and the co-design node clusters cyber scams, interventions and qualitative research, to name but a few. Online education, confirmatory factor analysis and digital transformation are all clustered in the higher education theme. The machine learning node includes NLP, cyberbullying detection and bidirectional encoder representations from transformers. This node slightly transcends Q4, indicating that themes are still developing while encompassing fundamental concepts of digital resilience. Much like the machine learning node, the digital resilience slightly transcends into Q4 and includes information literacy, elementary education and intervention themes. The digital competence node includes teacher education, e-safety and cybersecurity education themes, and it also extends to Q4. Developing themes are presented in Q4, including curriculum, child pornography, information security awareness, cybersecurity, victimisation and privacy. These themes are still developing, yet are important in digital resilience research. The curriculum node includes secondary education, learning and computer science themes, and it transcends to Q4. This indicates that the themes in the curriculum node are still developing but have begun to structure the field. The cybersecurity node clusters cyber safety, cyberbullying and social media as developing but fundamental concepts. The child pornography node includes sexting, cyberspace and freedom of expression themes, and slightly transcends Q1 as still developing, but also contributes to structuring the field. The information security awareness node clusters gender studies and phishing themes, while the privacy topic clusters security, privacy concerns and information disclosure themes. The cybervictimisation cluster is emerging and evolving within digital resilience as the field transitions to Q3. The second quadrant (Q2) presents case-study nodes, including cybersecurity education, action research and active audience theory, all of which are also specialised topics in other fields. The digital practice node also includes young people as a specialised theme in other fields. Motivation, fake news and technology themes are presented in Q3 as emerging topics.
Countries, focused themes and authors (RQ4)
This study also identified the countries of origin, predominant themes, and leading authors reflected in the reviewed studies. Figure 8 presents a three-field plot, arranged in author countries (leftmost column), author-published keywords (middle column) and authors (rightmost column). With greater volumes on privacy, cybersecurity, social media, children, digital citizenship and cyber safety, the USA leads with up to 219 author keywords. With 114 themes, including a primary focus on privacy, children, education, cybersecurity, security and cybercrime, the UK follows the USA. Malaysia, with 104 themes, focused on cybersecurity, social media, cybercrime, cyberbullying, cyber safety and security. South Africa, with 80 themes, focused on cyber safety, cybersecurity and awareness, and other impactful countries include the Netherlands, India, China, Germany and Spain. Themes that still need attention include the Internet, adolescents, information security, awareness, online safety, cyber safety, privacy concerns and digital citizenship, as indicated by the sizes of their blocks.
 |
FIGURE 8: A three-field plot of countries, themes of digital resilience and authors. |
|
Discussion
This study examined how research in the digital resilience field has evolved across scientific publications, thematic developments and trajectories. The discussion below interprets the findings in relation to each of the four research questions. With respect to RQ1, the bibliometric data revealed a clear growth trajectory in digital resilience research, expanding from a single publication in 2006 to 71 articles in 2024, driven by milestone events such as the emergence of cyberbullying discourse and the COVID-19 pandemic. Regarding RQ3, citation analysis demonstrated the significant interdisciplinary influence of seminal works, with global citations consistently exceeding local citations, confirming the diffusion of digital resilience knowledge into adjacent fields. In response to RQ2, thematic evolution showed stabilisation of core terms by the 2018–2025 period, while revealing persistent gaps in foundational constructs such as recovery capability, knowledge acquisition and adaptation. Concerning RQ4, the co-occurrence network and thematic map identified concrete interdisciplinary opportunities, particularly through the cybersecurity – cyberbullying – privacy cluster linkages and the underrepresentation of the adolescent theme. Overall, the findings identified a growth trajectory, future research avenues and possibilities for interdisciplinary collaboration to further broaden understanding of the digital resilience research field. There is also an alarming research deficit on adolescents, necessitating an urgency, as effects, such as vulnerability to mood and anxiety disorders, of trauma experienced at this transitioning stage extend to adulthood (Herrman, Stewart & Diaz-Granados 2011; Sisk & Gee 2022). The recognition of the Internet and cyberbullying as risks spurred research to enhance online safety, highlighting the emergence of digital resilience research in 2006. Schell (2006) described the good and bad societal effects of the expansion of the Internet, including issues, types of cybercrime, disputes and remedies. In 2008, research contributions focused on the rise of cyberbullying driven by advancements in computer and mobile technologies, with the highest average citation count of 7.69 (Kowalski et al. 2008; Mason 2008; Shariff 2008). Despite deficits in 2007, 2008 and 2010, resurgences in 2009 and 2011 expanded the research scope, including information systems security effectiveness, online privacy and website filtering; children and youth; safe Internet use and co-regulation; cyber risks; and factors like cyber ethics, cyber safety and cybercrime (Chai et al. 2009; Coronado et al. 2009; Fisk 2009; Kirwan & Power 2013; Lowry et al. 2011; Marsden 2011; Martin & Rice 2011; Nigam & Collier 2011; Pusey & Sadera 2011; Slovak & Singer 2011; Stol et al. 2009; Valcke et al. 2011). The number of publications increased annually, peaking at 8 articles in 2011 and reaching a remarkable 71 articles in 2024. These observations show a progressive growth in scope and volume, and given this trajectory, the research on digital resilience will continue to expand.
Further addressing RQ3, the analysis of references’ local and global citations indicated a positive outlook on the impact and relevance of publications in the field of digital resilience. Pusey and Sadera’s (2011) study on cybersecurity, cyber ethics and cyber safety, published in the Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, has been most influential, with 20 local citations compared to 60 global citations. With 16 local citations compared to 93 global citations, Chai et al.’s (2009) article on online information privacy published in IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication was also very influential. Notably, Lowry et al.’s (2011) article received 348 global citations and only 7 local citations, indicating a significant impact on other research fields but less so on digital resilience, whereas Pusey and Sadera’s (2011) work is leading locally, but less so globally. These results show consistently higher global citations than local citations, which, according to Lynn (2014), indicates that academics frequently reference works from external fields that are already cited locally, demonstrating articles’ influence outside their focal field. Therefore, publications that integrate knowledge have interdisciplinary qualities and are accepted and potentially changed by the audience that cites them, opening new research avenues – a process known as the diffusion approach (Lynn 2014; Porter & Rafols 2009; Wagner et al. 2011). Also, according to Wang et al. (2024), citations across a range of domains support the generalisability and robustness of the findings. Similarly, the interdisciplinarity of research is indicated by the number of different fields listed in the same bibliography, while interdisciplinary citations provide compelling evidence that disciplines function as a network of interrelated study areas rather than as information silos (Jacobs & Frickel 2009; Lynn 2014). However, there have not been many interdisciplinary approaches to cybersecurity, including digital resilience. According to Ramirez and Choucri (2016), there are three plausible reasons for the lack of an interdisciplinary approach. The first is that each field is defined by research standards; the second is that actions and responses to cybercrimes are prioritised over deeper theoretical research; and the third is the concern that any standardisation could limit the field.
Accordingly, these findings indicate heightened interest and the influence of publications in the subject of digital resilience, presenting opportunities for interdisciplinary research, both of which can enhance this area of study. As an essential first step, interdisciplinarity between policymakers and academia should focus on identifying strategies to prevent cybercrime (Ng et al. 2022).
With respect to RQ2, the thematic evolution results showed that the inception of digital resilience research included the Internet and privacy topics during the 2006–2011 period, with e-safety, information privacy, social engineering, security, the protection motivation theory, cyber safety, cybercrime and awareness emerging in the 2012–2017 period. The increase in the number of terms during this period signals the exploration of themes in the digital resilience research field. However, topics were fewer than in the preceding period but were extensively discussed in the 2018–2025 period, signalling a stabilisation of basic key terms and their development state in the digital research field. Notwithstanding the basic terms’ stabilisation, the literature still lacks the understanding of foundational elements that enhance digital resilience in response to new cybersecurity threats, as well as conceptual and practical perspectives on aspects such as recovery capacity, knowledge acquisition and adaptation (Mahmood et al. 2024; Pan et al. 2024). There is, therefore, a need for studies focused on identifying and expounding the basic elements that aid digital resilience in countering new cybersecurity threats across distinct stages of major crises, and on providing a more precise definition (Qi & Yang 2024b). The interdisciplinarity of the resilience concept necessitates multidisciplinary collaboration to deepen the understanding of digital resilience from both practical and theoretical perspectives and to aid the development of innovative solutions to effectively address contemporary challenges (Bahmanova & Lace 2024; Herrman et al. 2011).
Returning to RQ2 and its implications for adolescents, the results of keyword occurrence frequencies showed that cybersecurity, cyber safety, cyberbullying and privacy were the most discussed terms, while adolescents, AI, cyber threats and digital literacy terms have not been discussed as much, with the lowest occurrence frequency in 2024–2025 (eight). Furthermore, the findings demonstrated that the adolescents’ theme, which featured in 2015, received little attention in the research on digital resilience, and as of 2024, the ‘adolescents’ keyword appeared the least frequently. Scholars also lament the lack of recognition of adolescents in studies on digital resilience (Edwards 2021; Qi & Yang 2024a, 2024b).
Neglecting the adolescence stage, which is a period of heightened sensitivity to positive and negative situations, poses mental health risks that may extend to adulthood (Qi & Yang 2024a; Sisk & Gee 2022).
These findings, therefore, make it imperative for research on digital resilience to focus more on adolescents.
As they transition to adulthood, adolescents who develop strong digital resilience will be well-equipped to navigate the evolving digital environment and its associated challenges (Qi & Yang 2024a). These observations further call for tailored interventions to bolster digital resilience among adolescents at high risk of technology-induced stress.
Regarding RQ4, the results of keyword co-occurrence networks revealed common themes and potential avenues for future research (Napasti et al. 2025). The cybersecurity theme is linked to terms such as cyber safety, education, awareness, digital resilience, children, adolescents, youth and parents, indicating potential research avenues in these common themes. With education being one of the themes, this highlights the need to further explore the nuances of digital resilience for specific educational settings, such as those involving adolescents (Qi & Yang 2024a). Furthermore, cybersecurity awareness in the educational curriculum is imperative to ensure trustworthiness, protect children and safeguard data in cyberspace (AlShabibi & Al-Suqri 2021). The cluster of cyberbullying displays common research themes that focus on social media, sexting, child pornography, the Internet, NLP and using machine learning as interventions as potential research avenues. The results also showed common themes, such as information security, self-efficacy and the protection motivation theory, indicating research potential for digital resilience through the lenses of self-efficacy and the protection motivation theory. Other common themes include privacy, security, safety and the Internet as potential avenues for research. Also, links among themes such as privacy, cybersecurity, the privacy calculus, privacy concerns and information disclosure show the use of the privacy calculus theory to address research themes on privacy concerns. Additionally, the privacy calculus, information disclosure and the privacy paradox were areas of research interest in the context of privacy-paradoxical behaviour regarding information disclosure. The links among themes, such as teacher education, digital competence, e-safety and cybersecurity, signal potential research avenues. Also, links among teachers, cybersecurity, digital literacy, digital citizenship and cyber safety suggest potential research avenues on the need for teachers’ training that involves digital literacy and citizenship. These findings outline future directions, growth and the diversity of areas, as well as the field’s interdisciplinarity, which may help guide emerging scholars’ interests in digital resilience research. Thus, to broaden the concept of digital resilience beyond the technical aspects of the Internet’s design, interdisciplinary research and public and political discussions are required (Bahmanova & Lace 2024).
Addressing RQ2 and RQ4 jointly, the results of the top 20 trending themes showed that youth and child pornography themes were discussed as key topics in 2014. The cybersecurity theme was the most-discussed topic in 2020 and trended along with cyberbullying and awareness. The cyber safety theme trended together with digital literacy and cyber threats in 2019. Privacy was a key topic of discussion in 2022, along with social media and children. The cybercrime theme trended; privacy concerns and AI were mostly discussed in 2021 – the NLP trended in 2023, and digital resilience in 2024.
Furthermore, the thematic map identified co-design, higher education, digital resilience, machine learning and digital competence as well-developed topics (motor themes) within the field’s discourse on digital resilience.
Curriculum, cybersecurity, child pornography, information security awareness, privacy and cybervictimisation were among the basic themes that are developing at different scales. New or fading themes included technology, fake news and general data protection laws, and specialised topics included system dynamics, digital practices and case studies. These results revealed trends, developmental states and future directions in digital resilience research. According to this study’s findings, the digital resilience research field is still in its infancy and needs broadening to encompass the complexity of digital resilience by examining additional topics, such as adaptability, knowledge acquisition and recovery capacity (Pan et al. 2024). This observation provides guidance for scholars in the field while also highlighting the interdisciplinary opportunities to expand and mature the digital resilience research.
Finally, addressing RQ4 at the country level, countries’ thematic discussions showed increased emphasis on privacy, cybersecurity, social media, children, digital citizenship and cyber safety, with the USA leading with 219 author keywords. With 114 themes focused on privacy, children, education, cybersecurity, security and cybercrime, the UK follows the USA. Other countries include Malaysia (104 themes), focusing on cybersecurity, social media, cybercrime, cyberbullying, cyber safety and security, as well as South Africa (80 themes), focusing on cyber safety, cybersecurity and awareness. Other impactful countries include the Netherlands, India, China, Germany and Spain.
Limitations and implications
This study used the Bibliometrix R package with the Biblioshiny web interface to evaluate data from the Scopus-indexed database. As a result, the author acknowledges the limits of relying on a single source and the language biases involved.
Conclusion
Future directions
This study conducted a bibliometric analysis of the digital resilience research field over time, assessing trends, thematic focus and scientific productivity. The dataset was downloaded solely from the Scopus-indexed database because the Bibliometrix R package used in this work does not support integrating data from multiple databases (Agbo et al. 2021). As a result, the author notes the limits of relying on a sole source and potential language biases. As Ng et al. (2022) also note, effectively managing the ongoing rise in cybercrime to prevent, investigate and prosecute these crimes requires coordinating state tactics with academia to initiate research-driven policies and training. The findings highlighted research trends and a field-wide growth trajectory, with opportunities for interdisciplinary studies, spanning thematic domains such as cyber safety, cybersecurity, machine learning, fake news (disinformation), child pornography and digital competence to enhance digital resilience research. This analysis is valuable for informing researchers and stakeholders about opportunities for future research in areas such as adolescents, recovery capabilities, knowledge acquisition and adaptation within the digital resilience field. The research identified thematic discussions that also addressed privacy, cybersecurity, social media, children, digital citizenship, education, cybercrime and cyberbullying. Other themes that warrant attention in the realm of digital resilience encompass adolescents, cyber safety, information security, awareness, the Internet and emerging topics such as motivation, fake news, cybervictimisation, sexting and cybercrime. Wongmahesak, Singh and Kaunert (2025) note that the distinctive features of cybercrime victims have evolved, with younger individuals, particularly adolescents, becoming increasingly vulnerable. This vulnerability is evidenced by the rise in cyberbullying and online fraud among youths due to their frequent use of social media and gaming platforms. Therefore, policies, educational institutions, individuals and society must monitor and mitigate potential harm while maximising the benefits of cyberspace and the new norms in education, work and social life that technology brings. This necessitates changes in our educational approach, including a focus on cognitive abilities (such as critical thinking and problem solving) and safety; teaching cyber safety and digital resilience in curricula; and embracing modern technologies while keeping abreast of necessary risk-mitigation skills.
Acknowledgements
During the preparation of this work, the author used ChatGPT, version GPT-5.5, and Claude Sonnet version 4.6 for copyediting in order to enhance the manuscript’s readability, grammar, and clarity. Bibliometric analysis was conducted using Bibliometrix (version 4.2.1) through the Biblioshiny web interface version 4.4.3. The content was reviewed and edited by the author, who takes full responsibility for its accuracy.
Competing interests
The author declares that no financial or personal relationships inappropriately influenced the writing of this article.
CRediT authorship contribution
Fani M. Radebe: Conceptualisation, Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Software, Visualisation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. The author confirms that this work is entirely their own, has reviewed the article, approved the final version for submission and publication, and takes full responsibility for the integrity of its findings.
Funding information
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Data availability
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, Fani M. Radebe, upon reasonable request.
Disclaimer
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and are the product of professional research. They do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any affiliated institution, funder, agency or the publisher. The author is responsible for the article’s results, findings and content.
References
Agbo, F.J., Oyelere, S.S. & Suhonen, J., 2021, ‘Scientific production and thematic breakthroughs in smart learning environments: A bibliometric analysis’, Smart Learning Environments 8, 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40561-020-00145-4
Alam, A., Rampes, S. & Ma, D., 2021, ‘The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on research’, Translational Perioperative and Pain Medicine 8(1), 312–314. https://doi.org/10.31480/2330-4871/133
Alanazi, M., Freeman, M. & Tootell, H., 2022, ‘Exploring the factors that influence the cybersecurity behaviours of young adults’, Computers in Human Behaviour 136, 107376. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2022.107376
AlShabibi, A. & Al-Suqri, M., 2021, ‘Cybersecurity awareness and its impact on protecting children in cyberspace’, in 2021 22nd International Arab Conference on Information Technology (ACIT), Muscat, December 21–23, pp. 1–6.
Aria, M. & Cuccurullo, C., 2017, ‘Bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis’, Journal of Informetrics 11(4), 959–975. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2017.08.007
Bahmanova, A. & Lace, N., 2024, ‘From cyber security to cyber resilience: Safeguarding against evolving risks in the digital landscape’, in New trends in contemporary economics, business and management. Selected proceedings of the 14th International scientific conference ‘Business and Management 2024’, Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, Vilnius, May 16–17, pp. 345–353.
Barbhuiya, R.K., 2024, ‘Cyber-safety: Concepts, threats, and essential measures’, Indian Journal of Educational Technology 6, 361–376.
Chai, S., Bagchi-Sen, S., Morrell, C., Rao, H.R. & Upadhyaya, S.J., 2009, ‘Internet and online information privacy: An exploratory study of preteens and early teens’, IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication 52(2), 167–182. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPC.2009.2017985
Chang, L.Y. & Coppel, N., 2020, ‘Building cyber security awareness in a developing country: Lessons from Myanmar’, Computers & Security 97, 101959. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cose.2020.101959
Chen, G. & Xiao, L., 2016, ‘Selecting publication keywords for domain analysis in bibliometrics: A comparison of three methods’, Journal of Informetrics 10, 212–223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2016.01.006
Coronado, A.S., Mahmood, M.A., Pahnila, S. & Luciano, E.M., 2009, ‘Measuring effectiveness of information systems security: An empirical research’, in AMCIS 2009 Proceedings, Paper 282, San Francisco, CA, August 06–09, 2009, pp. 1–8, viewed 06 March 2025, from https://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2009/282.
Dockery, M. & Bawa, S., 2020, Working from home in the COVID-19 lockdown, Bankwest Curtin Economics Centre No. 19, Curtin University, viewed 23 March 2025, from https://bcec.edu.au/assets/2020/05/BCEC-COVID19-Brief-4_Working-from-home.pdf.
Dodel, M. & Mesch, G., 2018, ‘Inequality in digital skills and the adoption of online safety behaviours’, Information, Communication & Society 21, 712–728. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2018.1428652
Dodel, M. & Mesch, G., 2019, ‘An integrated model for assessing cyber-safety behaviours: How cognitive, socioeconomic, and digital determinants affect diverse safety practices’, Computers & Security 86, 75–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cose.2019.05.023
Edwards, S., 2021, ‘Cyber-safety and COVID-19 in the early years: A research agenda’, Journal of Early Childhood Research 19(3), 396–410. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476718X211014908
Fischer, C., Siegel, J., Proeller, I. & Drathschmidt, N., 2023, ‘Resilience through digitalisation: How individual and organisational resources affect public employees working from home during the COVID-19 pandemic’, Public Management Review 25(4), 808–835. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2022.2037014
Fisk, N., 2009, Understanding online piracy: The truth about illegal file sharing, Bloomsbury Publishing, New York, NY.
Heravi, A., Mubarak, S. & Choo, K.K.R., 2018, ‘Information privacy in online social networks: Uses and gratification perspective’, Computers in Human Behavior 84, 441–459. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.03.016
Herrman, H., Stewart, D.E. & Diaz-Granados, N., 2011, ‘What is resilience?’, The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry 56(5), 258–265. https://doi.org/10.1177/070674371105600504
Hipsky, S. & Younes, W., 2015, ‘Beyond concern: K-12 faculty and staff’s perspectives on privacy topics and cybersafety’, International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education 11(4), 51–66. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJICTE.2015100104
Jacobs, J.A. & Frickel, S., 2009, ‘Interdisciplinarity: A critical assessment’, Annual Review of Sociology 35(1), 43–65. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-070308-115954
Karwatzki, S., Dytynko, O., Trenz, M. & Veit, D., 2017, ‘Beyond the personalization–privacy paradox: Privacy valuation, transparency features, and service personalization’, Journal of Management Information Systems 34(2), 369–400. https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2017.1334467
Kaufmann, K., Straganz, C. & Bork-Hüffer, T., 2020, ‘City-life No more? Young adults’ disrupted urban experiences and their digital mediation under COVID-19’, Urban Planning 5(4), 324–334. https://doi.org/10.17645/up.v5i4.3479
Kirwan, G. & Power, A., 2013, Cybercrime: The psychology of online offenders, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Kowalski, R., Limber, S. & Agatston, P., 2008, Cyberbullying: The new moral frontier, Blackwell Publishing Ltd., Oxford.
Kritzinger, E., 2015, ‘Enhancing cyber safety awareness among school children in South Africa through gaming’, in Science and Information Conference (SAI), London, July 28–30, pp. 1243–1248.
Kritzinger, E., 2016, ‘Short-term initiatives for enhancing cyber-safety within South African schools’, South African Computer Journal 28(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.18489/sacj.v28i1.369
Kritzinger, E., 2017a, ‘Cultivating a cyber-safety culture among school learners in South Africa’, Africa Education Review 14(1), 22–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/18146627.2016.1224561
Kritzinger, E., 2017b, ‘Growing a cyber-safety culture amongst school learners in South Africa through gaming’, South African Computer Journal 29(2), 16–35. https://doi.org/10.18489/sacj.v29i2.471
Kumar, P., Vitak, J., Chetty, M. & Clegg, T.L., 2018, ‘Co-designing online privacy-related games and stories with children’, in Proceedings of the 17th ACM conference on interaction design and children, Trondheim, June 19–22, pp. 67–79.
Lee, A.Y. & Hancock, J., 2023, ‘Developing digital resilience: An educational intervention improves elementary students’ response to digital challenges’, Computers and Education Open 5, 100144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeo.2023.100144
Lowry, P.B., Cao, J. & Everard, A., 2011, ‘Privacy concerns versus desire for interpersonal awareness in driving the use of self-disclosure technologies: The case of instant messaging in two cultures’, Journal of Management Information Systems 27(4), 163–200. https://doi.org/10.2753/MIS0742-1222270406
Lynn, F.B., 2014, ‘Diffusing through disciplines: Insiders, outsiders, and socially influenced citation behaviour’, Social Forces 93(1), 355–382. https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/sou069
Mahmood, S., Chadhar, M. & Firmin, S., 2024, ‘Digital resilience framework for managing crisis: A qualitative study in the higher education and research sector’, Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management 32(1), e12549. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-5973.12549
Mak, H.W., Trubiano, J.A., Blumenthal, K.G. & Li, P.H., 2024, ‘Bibliometric analysis of the trends and evolution in β-lactam allergy research’, Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology: Global 3, 100328. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacig.2024.100328
Marsden, C.T., 2011, Internet co-regulation: European law, regulatory governance and legitimacy in cyberspace, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Martin, F., Gezer, T. & Wang, C., 2019, ‘Educators’ perceptions of student digital citizenship practices’, Computers in the Schools 36(4), 238–254. https://doi.org/10.1080/07380569.2019.1674621
Martin, F., Gezer, T., Wang, W.C., Petty, T. & Wang, C., 2022, ‘Examining K-12 educator experiences from digital citizenship professional development’, Journal of Research on Technology in Education 54(1), 143–160. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2020.1815611
Martin, F., Hunt, B., Wang, C. & Brooks, E., 2020, ‘Middle school student perception of technology use and digital citizenship practices’, Computers in the Schools 37(3), 196–215. https://doi.org/10.1080/07380569.2020.1795500
Martin, N. & Rice, J., 2011, ‘Cybercrime: Understanding and addressing the concerns of stakeholders’, Computers and Security 30(8), 803–814. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cose.2011.07.003
Martin, N. & Rice, J., 2012, ‘Children’s cyber-safety and protection in Australia: An analysis of community stakeholder views’, Crime Prevention and Community Safety 14, 165–181. https://doi.org/10.1057/cpcs.2012.4
Mason, K.L., 2008, ‘Cyberbullying: A preliminary assessment for school personnel’, Psychology in the Schools 45(4), 323–348. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20301
Melega, A., 2022, ‘Bibliometric analysis of scientific production regarding the harmonization of accounting in BRICS emerging economies’, European Journal of Accounting, Finance and Business 10(1), 11–20. https://doi.org/10.4316/EJAFB.2022.1012
Mohsen, M.A., Fu, H.Z. & Ho, Y.S., 2017, ‘A bibliometric analysis of linguistics publications in the web of science’, Journal of Science Research 6(2), 109–118. https://doi.org/10.5530/jscires.6.2.16
Napasti, F., Jumilah, Suprapto, N. & Hariyono, E., 2025, ‘The practice of sustainable lifestyle and awareness: A thematic evolution through biblioshiny’, Multidisciplinary Reviews 8(3), 2025075. https://doi.org/10.31893/multirev.2025075
Nayak, R., Jain, A., Saxena, M. & Kumar, R., 2024, ‘Cyber security for personal data’, in D. Parul, S.C. Gurpreet, T.H. Bui & G. Umashankar (eds.), Developing AI, IoT and Cloud computing-based tools and applications for women’s safety, pp. 123–141, Chapman and Hall/CRC, New York, NY.
Ng, M., Widanaralalage, B.K., Buchanan, T. & Coopamootoo, K., 2022, ‘Cybercrimes in the aftermath of COVID-19: Present concerns and future directions’, Journal of Concurrent Disorders 5, 35–53. https://doi.org/10.54127/LWVW7835
Nigam, H. & Collier, A., 2011, ‘Youth safety on a living Internet: Report of the online safety and technology working group’, in A.O. Collins (ed.), Youth safety on the Internet: Analysis, recommendations and laws, pp. n.p., Internet Theory, Technology and Applications, Nova Science Publishers, Inc, Hauppauge, NY.
Pan, Q., Lan, M., Tan, C.Y., Tao, S., Liang, Q. & Law, N., 2024, ‘Protective factors contributing to adolescents’ multifaceted digital resilience for their wellbeing: A socio-ecological perspective’, Computers in Human Behaviour 155, 108164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2024.108164
Pangrazio, L. & Cardozo Gaibisso, L., 2020, ‘Beyond Cybersafety: The Need to Develop Social Media Literacies in Pre-Teens’, Digital Education Review 37, 49–63.
Porter, A.L. & Rafols, I., 2009, ‘Is science becoming more interdisciplinary? Measuring and mapping six research fields over time’, Scientometrics 81, 719–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-008-2197-2
Pusey, P. & Sadera, W.A., 2011, ‘Cyberethics, cybersafety, and cybersecurity: Preservice teacher knowledge, preparedness, and the need for teacher education to make a difference’, Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education 28(2), 82–85. https://doi.org/10.1080/21532974.2011.10784684
Qi, C. & Yang, N., 2024a, ‘Digital resilience and technological stress in adolescents: A mixed-methods study of factors and interventions’, Education and Information Technologies 29, 19067–19113. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12595-1
Qi, C. & Yang, N., 2024b, ‘Digital resilience in Chinese adolescents: A portrayal of the current condition, influencing factors, and improvement strategies’, Frontiers in Psychiatry 15, 1278321. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2024.1278321
Rahman, N.A.A., Sairi, I.H., Zizi, N.A.M. & Khalid, F., 2020, ‘The importance of cybersecurity education in school’, International Journal of Information and Education Technology 10(5), 378–382. https://doi.org/10.18178/ijiet.2020.10.5.1393
Ramirez, R. & Choucri, N., 2016, ‘Improving interdisciplinary communication with standardized cyber security terminology: A literature review’, IEEE Access 4, 2216–2243. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2016.2544381
Schadl, S.M. & Todeschini, M., 2015, ‘Cite globally, analyze locally: Citation analysis from a local Latin American studies perspective’, College & Research Libraries 76(2), 136–149. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.76.2.136
Schell, B.H., 2006, The Internet and society: A reference handbook, Bloomsbury Publishing, New York, NY.
Setyawati, R., Mareza, L. & Hamka, M., 2022, ‘Digital resilience: Opportunities and threats for adolescents in a virtual world’, Acta Informatica Malaysia 6(2), 67–71. https://doi.org/10.26480/aim.02.2022.67.71
Shandilya, S.K., Datta, A. & Kartik, Y., 2024, ‘What is digital resilience?’, in I. Chlamtac (ed.), Digital resilience: Navigating disruption and safeguarding data privacy, pp. 3–42, Springer Nature Switzerland, Cham.
Shariff, S., 2008, Cyberbullying: Issues and solutions for the school, the classroom and the home, Routledge, London.
Shariff, S., 2009, Confronting cyberbullying: What schools need to know to control misconduct and avoid legal consequences, Cambridge University Press, New York, NY.
Sharma, M.K., Anand, N., Roopesh, B.N., & Sunil, S., 2022, ‘Digital resilience mediates healthy use of technology’, Medico-Legal Journal 90(4), 195–199. https://doi.org/10.1177/00258172211018337
Sisk, L.M. & Gee, D.G., 2022, ‘Stress and adolescence: Vulnerability and opportunity during a sensitive window of development’, Current Opinion in Psychology 44, 286–292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2021.10.005
Skrinjaric, B., 2023, ‘Internet skills and range of activities: Influence of Internet literacy on resilience to online privacy violation’, in T. Darko & M. Matija (eds.), 94th International scientific conference on economic and social development, pp. 21–34, Varazdin Development and Entrepreneurship Agency, Varazdin.
Slovak, K. & Singer, J.B., 2011, ‘School social workers’ perceptions of cyberbullying’, Children and Schools 33(1), 5–16. https://doi.org/10.1093/cs/33.1.5
Smrdelj, R. & Lenarčič, B., 2024, ‘When worlds collide: Sociality between physical and cyberspace during the COVID-19 pandemic’, Sociology and Space: Journal for the Research of Spatial and Sociocultural Development 62(1), 143–163. https://doi.org/10.5673/sip.62.1.7
Soetekouw, L. & Angelopoulos, S., 2024, ‘Digital resilience through training protocols: Learning to identify fake news on social media’, Information Systems Frontiers 26(2), 459–475. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-021-10240-7
Song, Y., Chen, X., Hao, T., Liu, Z. & Lan, Z., 2019, ‘Exploring two decades of research on classroom dialogue by using bibliometric analysis’, Computers in Education 137, 12–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.04.002
Stol, W.P., Kaspersen, H.K.W., Kerstens, J., Leukfeldt, E.R. & Lodder, A.R., 2009, ‘Governmental filtering of websites: The Dutch case’, Computer Law & Security Review 25(3), 251–262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2009.03.002
Sun, H., Yuan, C., Qian, Q., He, S. & Luo, Q., 2022, ‘Digital resilience among individuals in school education settings: A concept analysis based on a scoping review’, Frontiers in Psychiatry 13, 858515. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2022.858515
Valcke, M., De Wever, B., Van Keer, H. & Schellens, T., 2011, ‘Long-term study of safe Internet use of young children’, Computers and Education 57, 1292–1305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.01.010
Valiente, C., Vázquez, C., Contreras, A., Peinado, V. & Trucharte, A., 2021, ‘A symptom-based definition of resilience in times of pandemics: Patterns of psychological responses over time and their predictors’, European Journal of Psychotraumatology 12(1), 1871555. https://doi.org/10.1080/20008198.2020.1871555
Vissenberg, J., D’Haenens, L. & Livingstone, S., 2022, ‘Digital literacy and online resilience as facilitators of young people’s wellbeing? A systematic review’, European Psychologist 27, 76–85. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000478
Von Solms, S. & Von Solms, R., 2014, ‘Towards cyber safety education in primary schools in Africa’, in N. Clarke & S. Furnell (eds.), The eighth international symposium on human aspects of information security & assurance, Plymouth, July 08–10, pp. 185–197.
Wagner, C.S., Roessner, J.D., Bobb, K., Klein, J.T., Boyack, K.W., Keyton, J. et al. 2011, ‘Approaches to understanding and measuring interdisciplinary scientific research (IDR): A review of the literature’, Journal of Informetrics 5(1), 14–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2010.06.004
Waltman, L., 2016, ‘A review of the literature on citation impact indicators’, Journal of Informetrics 10(2), 365–391. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2016.02.007
Wang, J., Frietsch, R., Neuhäusler, P. & Hooi, R., 2024, ‘International collaboration leading to high citations: Global impact or home country effect?’, Journal of Informetrics 18(4), 101565. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2024.101565
Wickström, L., 2024, ‘A mixed method approach to digital resilience awareness: Identifying business capabilities for future preparedness’, Master’s thesis, Åbo Akademi University, Doria, viewed 17 February 2025, from https://www.doria.fi/handle/10024/189270.
Wongmahesak, K., Singh, B. & Kaunert, C., 2025, ‘The complex interplay of generational differences, digital literacy, and cybercrime fear’, Asian Crime and Society Review 12(1), 3. https://doi.org/10.14456/acsr.2025.3
|
Hide
Show all
Email this article (Login required)
