International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies(iJIM) – eISSN: 1865-7923 – Vol. 16 No. 08 (2022) Paper—Top 100 Cited Publications for The Last Thirty Years in Digital Learning and Mobile Learning Top 100 Cited Publications for The Last Thirty Years in Digital Learning and Mobile Learning https://doi.org/10.3991/ijim.v16i08.29803 Binar Kurnia Prahani1(*), Mohd Zaidi Bin Amiruddin1, Budi Jatmiko1, Nadi Suprapto1, Tan Amelia2 1Universitas Negeri Surabaya, Surabaya, Indonesia 2Universitas Dinamika, Surabaya, Indonesia binarprahani@unesa.ac.id Abstract—Digital learning and mobile learning are two different things but have something in common. This research aims to find trends, topics, similarities, differences, advantages, and disadvantages of digital learning and mobile learn- ing over the last thirty years (1992–2021). The method used in this research is bibliometric analysis with the help of Ms-excel, VOSViewer, and Wordcloud to visualize the metadata obtained from Scopus. The findings show that the trend of digital learning continues to increase from year to year. In addition, it can explain that mobile learning is an innovative part of digital learning with almost the same differences, similarities, advantages, and disadvantages. In the future, it is hoped that further research related to digital learning will continue to develop along with technological developments. Keywords—bibliometric, digital learning, mobile learning, VOSViewer 1 Introduction Education is so important for humans because it is one of the paths to success regard- less of origin. This is evidenced by learning and development of knowledge from time to time continues to grow [1][2]. This is compounded by the existence of new policies that continue to change from year to year. There are so many changes that occur in the world of education [3][4]. According to [5][6], education is very important to continue to be developed in order to provide learning opportunities for all groups. In addition, education is included in the world leader’s action plan known as the SDGs (Sustainable Development Goals) [7][8]. Major changes occurred during the Covid-19 pandemic. This causes learning to switch from offline (direct) to online (virtual) [9][10]. That way, new innovations and terms have emerged, such as learning platforms, learning applications, digital learning, online learning, web learning, e-modules, e-books, and many more. Several studies have been conducted regarding online learning models including mobile learning, the effectiveness of digital technology, digital readiness, digital comics, and usability of mobile learning apps [11][12][13][14][15]. 18 http://www.i-jim.org https://doi.org/10.3991/ijim.v16i08.29803 mailto:binarprahani@unesa.ac.id Paper—Top 100 Cited Publications for The Last Thirty Years in Digital Learning and Mobile Learning Digital learning and mobile learning are the main topics of discussion in the world of education today [16][17]. This will certainly continue to grow along with technological developments. However, it is necessary to know about these developments through research that has been carried out by various authors and institutions by looking at the publications of previous studies to date in the form of conference proceedings, journal articles and other scientific media [18][19]. According to Yeaung et al. [20], to see the most impactful topics is not easy to access. Therefore, there is a need for bibliometric analysis to identify and explore impactful topics [14][21]. Using bibliometric analysis can provide a valid review quality, visualize salient areas, improve understanding of the distribution of a research topic, and provide clues for future research [22][23][24]. In addition, bibliometric analysis is assisted by using the VOSViewer, MS-Excel, and Word cloud software in visualizing the research results to make it more interesting. The purpose of this study is to conduct a literature review related to digital learning and mobile learning topics for one hundred cited in the last thirty years from 1992 to 2021 using bibliometric analysis. There are several research questions were asked to help achieve the specific research problem: 1. What are the trends of publication from 1992 to 2021 in digital learning and mobile learning? 2. What are the types of publication of the top one hundred cited papers in digital learn- ing and mobile learning? 3. How is the distribution of the top 100 papers quoted from digital learning and mobile learning? 4. Who are the prolific authors of the top one hundred cited papers in digital learning and mobile learning? 5. Which countries are most interested in digital learning research and mobile learning? 6. What are the differences and similarities between digital learning and mobile learning? 7. What are the advantages and disadvantages of digital learning and mobile learning? 2 Methodology This research is a type of quantitative research based on the Scopus database. Then, using bibliometric analysis that can prove and find novelty and trends in research [25] [26][27][28]. Data collection was obtained through a Scopus search as of 23 January 2022 with the following criteria in Table 1. Table 1. Screening data Description Digital Learning Mobile Learning Keywords Title (digital AND earning) Title (mobile AND learning) Document All Year 6255 Document 9542 document Document year (1992–2021) 6148 Document 9481 document iJIM ‒ Vol. 16, No. 08, 2022 19 Paper—Top 100 Cited Publications for The Last Thirty Years in Digital Learning and Mobile Learning Then the metadata is saved in csv and ris. format. After that, further analysis was carried out using software such as MS-Excel, VOSViewer, and WordCloud to make the data display more attractive [25][29][30]. According to Putri et al. [31] the effective- ness of VOSViewer has been proven in a recent study that has been carried out with the Scopus index. Fig. 1. Flowchart research 3 Result and discussion 3.1 Publication research trend Figures 1a and 1b show a very significant development in the publication of articles on Scopus over the last thirty years. This shows that the high interest of the academic community towards research and the trends that are developing are very high. a) Digital Learning b) Mobile Learning Fig. 2. Publication trend digital learning and mobile learning last thirty years Figure 2 shows the number of articles in the field of digital learning and mobile learning at Scopus. Digital learning in 1992 only amounted to 9 documents. Then the increase occurred continuously which finally in 2021 the published articles had reached thousands, namely 1052 documents. Whereas mobile learning in 1992 only amounted to 6 documents. Then the increase occurred continuously which finally in 2021 the published articles had reached thousands, namely 1018 documents. 20 http://www.i-jim.org Paper—Top 100 Cited Publications for The Last Thirty Years in Digital Learning and Mobile Learning 3.2 Visualization keyword of papers The most frequently used keywords are graphically shown in Figure 3. Larger font sizes represent the frequency with which words are used the most. Words that are com- monly used in digital learning are E-learning, students, human, teach, deep learning, etc. As for mobile learning, the words that are often used are mobile learning, students, E-learning, teaching, mobile application, education, etc. a) Digital Learning b) Mobile Learning Fig. 3. The most relevant keywords From 1992 to 2021 there were 6148 Scopus indexed documents with the topic of digital learning. As for the topic of mobile learning from 1992 to 2021, there are 9481 documents. Then the researcher visualized the trend of the topic with the help of VOSViewer which is presented in Figures 3a and 3b. In addition, the brightest color indicates the most updated word related to the BDAG [37]. Fig. 4a. The network visualization relevance trend in digital learning Based on Figure 4(a) the relevance trend in digital learning produces three visible color clusters (yellow, green, and purple). In the first cluster (yellow color) are student, iJIM ‒ Vol. 16, No. 08, 2022 21 Paper—Top 100 Cited Publications for The Last Thirty Years in Digital Learning and Mobile Learning education, limit, initiative, higher education institution, innovation, ict, covid, world, digital technology, employee, switzerland, literacy, teacher, experience, interview, and etc. The second cluster (green color) is model, http, big data, solution, task, computer, treatment, set, performance, technique, network, digital twin, architecture, algorithm, image, power amplifier, classifier, diagnosis, and etc. The third cluster (purple color) is test, transfer, exercise, score, achievement, motivation, digital game, english, pre test, students motivation, and etc. In addition, the lightest color indicates the most updated word related to the topics [37]. Fig. 4b. The network visualization relevance trend in mobile learning Based on Figure 4(b) the relevance trend in digital learning resulted in four visi- ble color clusters (yellow, green, purple, and red). In the first cluster (yellow color) are study, student, participant, teacher, skill, learning, school, pretest, english, spain, interview, control group, social learning, medicine, photo, and etc. The second cluster (green) is problem, critical issue, significant improvement, experiment, patient, quality, technique, new approach, control, state, network, algorithm, mobile robot, edge, and etc. The third cluster (purple) is usage, ilc, springer nature, variance, factor, key factor, m-learning, belief, higher education, acceptance, behavioral intention, and etc. Cluster four (red) is Switzerland. 3.3 Publication type Table 2. Document type of top cited paper Document Type Frequency Total Cited Mean Median SD DL ML DL ML DL ML DL ML DL ML Article 80 82 13544* 21680* 169.3 264.4 119.0 212.5 158.8 132.8 Conference Paper 8 11 872 2637 109.0 239.7 92.0 229.0 45.9 65.7 Book 6 2 905 666 150.5 333.0 129.0 333.0 61.8 79.2 Review 4 4 758 1363 189.0* 340.8* 204.0* 339.5* 95.7 103.2 Book Chapter 1 1 88 299 88.0 299.0 88.0 299.0 – Editorial 1 – 363 – 363.0 – 363.0 – – – Total 100 100 16530 26647 1069.6 1477.9 – – – – Note: *=the highest number. 22 http://www.i-jim.org Paper—Top 100 Cited Publications for The Last Thirty Years in Digital Learning and Mobile Learning Document types from the top 100 papers published in digital learning and mobile learning from 1992 to 2021 can be seen in Table 2. The 100 papers for digital learning has six document types, namely, articles (80), Conference paper (8), Book (6), Review (4), Book Chapter (1), and Editorial (1). In addition, the highest and lowest average number of review citations are (363.0) and (88.0) respectively, with the highest stan- dard deviation (158.8). Meanwhile, for 100 mobile learning papers, there are five types of documents, namely articles (82), conference papers (11), books (2), reviews (4), and book chapters (1). Furthermore, for the highest and lowest average number of review citations, respectively (340.0) and (239.0) with the highest standard deviation (132.8). 3.4 Distribution of top cited 100 paper Table 3. Distribution paper Digital Learning Mobile Learning Year Paper Citation ACPP HAPPY City Year Year Paper Citation ACPP HAPPY Citable 1992 1 95 95.0 3.2 30 1995 1 202 202.0 7.5 27 1995 2 215 107.5 4.0 27 1996 1 222 222.0 8.5 26 2001 2 414 207.0 9.9 21 1998 2 903 451.5 18.8 24 2004 2 450 225.0 12.5 18 2000 1 601 601.0* 27.3 22 2005 4 1219 304.8 17.9 17 2002 4 872 218.0 10.9 20 2006 2 261 130.5 8.2 16 2003 6 1368 228.0 12.0 19 2007 5 878 175.6 11.7 15 2004 2 471 235.5 13.1 18 2008 5 844 168.8 12.1 14 2005 2 614 307.0 18.1 17 2009 7 2253 321.9* 24.8 13 2006 1 160 160.0 10.0 16 2010 3 410 136.7 11.4 12 2007 8 2170 271.3 18.1 15 2011 7 904 129.1 11.7 11 2008 6 2364 394.0 28.1 14 2012 10 1298 129.8 13.0 10 2009 10* 2856* 285.6 22.0 13 2013 7 1159 165.6 18.4 9 2010 8 1923 240.4 20.0 12 2014 8 860 107.5 13.4 8 2011 7 2328 332.6 30.2 11 2015 4 420 105.0 15.0 7 2012 5 1870 374.0 37.4 10 2016 11* 2433* 221.2 36.9 6 2013 5 1445 289.0 32.1 9 2017 4 533 133.3 26.7 5 2014 5 986 197.2 24.7 8 2018 6 807 134.5 33.6 4 2015 2 390 195.0 27.9 7 2019 8 711 88.9 29.6 3 2016 8 2211 276.4 46.1 6 2020 2 274 137.0 68.5* 2 2017 7 1510 215.7 43.1 5 – – – – – – 2018 4 774 193.5 48.4 4 – – – – – – 2019 4 1181 295.3 98.4* 3 – – – – – – 2020 1 225 225.0 112.5 2 Total 100 16438 3224.5 382.3 Total 100 27646 6409.8 715.2 Notes: ACPP= Average Citation Per Paper, ACPPY= Average Citation Per Paper Per Year, *= the highest number. iJIM ‒ Vol. 16, No. 08, 2022 23 Paper—Top 100 Cited Publications for The Last Thirty Years in Digital Learning and Mobile Learning Based on the Table 3 above, for digital learning and mobile learning, publications do not occur every year. This can be seen in the years that have no paper at all. Fur- thermore, the top 100 articles on digital learning obtained a total of citations (16438) with an average of (3224.5) citations. The highest citation is (2433) in 2016, the highest average citation is (321.9) in 2009, and the highest average citation per paper per year is (68.5) in 2020. As for mobile learning, it gets a total of citations (27646) with an average (6409.8) citations. The highest citation is (2856) in 2009, the highest average citation is (601.0) in 2000, and the highest average citation per paper per year is (98.4) in 2019. 3.5 Top 10 authors with more articles Table 4. Top 10 author with more article Digital Learning Mobile Learning Author Document Country Author Document Country Ifenthaler, D 15 Curtin University (Australia) Hwang, GJ 70 National Taiwan University of Science and Technology (Taiwan) Lam, EY 14 The University of Hong Kong (Hong Kong) Huang, YM 39 National Cheng Kung University (Taiwan) Chen, GD 13 National Central University(Taiwan) Milrad, M 36 Linnaeus University (Sweden) Barber, W. 12 Ontario Tech University (Canada) Kukulska- Hulme, A 34 The Open University, Milton Keynes (United Kingdom) Hwang, GJ 12 National Taiwan University of Science and Technology (Taiwan) Wong, LH 34 National Institute of Education (Singapore) Bandung, Y 11 Bandung Institute of Technology (Indonesia) Traxler, J 30 University of Wolverhampton (United Kingdom) Lee, JS 11 The Education University of Hong Kong (Hong Kong) Looi, CK 29 Center for Research and Development in Learning (Singapore) Erstad, O 9 Universitetet I Oslo (Norway) Parsons, D 26 The Mind Lab, Auckland (New Zealand) Huang, YM 9 National Cheng Kung University (Taiwan) Sharples, M 26 The Open University, Milton Keynes (United Kingdom) Sampson, DG 9 University of Piraeus (Greece) Specht, M 24 Delft University of Technology (Netherlands) 24 http://www.i-jim.org Paper—Top 100 Cited Publications for The Last Thirty Years in Digital Learning and Mobile Learning Table 4 shows the top 10 authors’ articles with the highest number of documents from 1992 to 2021 from different countries. In digital learning, it is dominated by Ifenthaler, D from Curtin University (Australia) with a total of 15 documents, followed by Lam, EY from The University of Hong Kong (Hong Kong) with a total of 14 documents, and followed by Chen, G.D from National Central University(Taiwan) with the number of diemen (13). Meanwhile, for mobile learning, it was dominated by Hwang, GJ from the National Taiwan University of Science and Technology (Taiwan) with a total of (70) documents, followed by Huang, YM from National Cheng Kung University (Taiwan) with 39 documents, and followed by Milrad, M from Linnaeus University (Sweden) with the number of documents (36). 3.6 Top country of publication 100 highest Table 5. Top countries 100 cited publication (1992–2021) Digital Learning Mobile Learning Country Article Total Citation Average Article Citation Country Article Total Citation Average Article Citation United States 33 6452 195.52 Taiwan 26 8308 319.54 United Kingdom 13 2120 163.08 United States 19 5658 297.79 Taiwan 7 584 83.43 United Kingdom 17 3166 186.24 China 5 435 87.00 Singapore 4 879 219.75 Netherlands 5 1532 306.40 South Korea 3 744 248.00 Australia 4 490 122.50 Switzerland 3 831 277.00 Belgium 4 423 105.75 Australia 3 646 215.33 Finland 4 598 149.50 China 3 626 208.67 Hong Kong 4 548 137.00 Japan 3 622 207.33 Canada 3 1187 395.67 Netherlands 2 373 186.50 Germany 3 475 158.33 Germany 2 400 200.00 South Korea 3 510 170.00 Italy 2 382 191.00 France 1 295 295.00 Turkey 2 353 176.50 Greece 1 984 984.00 Canada 2 400 200.00 Italy 1 74 74.00 South Africa 1 303 303.00 New Zealand 1 137 137.00 Nigeria 1 300 300.00 Norway 1 81 81.00 Hong Kong 1 285 285.00 Oman 1 292 292.00 Malaysia 1 213 213.00 Russian 1 77 77.00 Spain 1 196 196.00 Singapore 1 189 189.00 Portugal 1 180 180.00 Spain 1 305 305.00 Chile 1 170 170.00 Switzerland 1 105 105.00 Finland 1 163 163.00 Thailand 1 74 74.00 France 1 162 162.00 Turkey 1 71 71.00 – – – – Total 100 18038 4758.2 Total 100 25277 5061.3 iJIM ‒ Vol. 16, No. 08, 2022 25 Paper—Top 100 Cited Publications for The Last Thirty Years in Digital Learning and Mobile Learning The calculation of the publication of articles from countries is only based on the affiliation that published the articles. Table 5 shows that there are country differences between the top 100 digital learning papers and the top 100 mobile learning papers. For digital learning, it shows that there are 24 different countries that have produced the top 100. The United States dominates the production of papers with (33) articles, fol- lowed by the United Kingdom (13), Taiwan (7), China and the Netherlands respectively (5), Australia, Belgium, Finland, and Hong Kong (4), respectively, Canada, Germany, and South Korea (3), and France, Greece, Italy, New Zealand, Norway, Oman, Russia, Singapore, Spain, Switzerland, and Thailand each (1) article for digital learning. As for mobile learning, it shows that there are 23 different countries that have produced the top 100 articles. Article publications are dominated by Taiwan (26), United States (19), United Kingdom (17), Singapore (4), South Korea, Switzerland, Australia, China, and Japan respectively (3), Netherlands, Germany, Italy, Turkey, and Canada (2) each, and South Africa, Nigeria, Hong Kong, Malaysia, Spain, Portugal, Chile, Finland, and France each (1) article for mobile learning. 3.7 Top 10 productive countries When analyzing we found the leading countries that have the most publications on digital learning and mobile learning. Each of the top three countries that have the most publications during 1991 to 2021 are the United States (1354 doc), United Kingdom (456 doc), and China (407 doc) for digital learning which can be seen in Figure 5a. As for mobile learning, the top three countries that have the most publications during 1991 to 2021 are China (1390 docs), United States (1359 docs), and United Kingdom (659 docs) which can be seen in Figure 5b. 0 500 1,000 1,500 Document 1,354 456 407 341 320 306 274 216 209 176 United States United Kingdom China Germany Australia Taiwan Spain Indonesia Canada India Fig. 5a. Top 10 productive countries digital learning 26 http://www.i-jim.org Paper—Top 100 Cited Publications for The Last Thirty Years in Digital Learning and Mobile Learning 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 Document 1,390 1,359 659 652 437 411 371 359 355 349 China United States United Kingdom Taiwan Malaysia Australia Germany Japan Spain Indonesia Fig. 5b. Top 10 productive countries mobile learning 3.8 The differences and similarities between digital learning and mobile learning After reviewing literature and other scientific sources, facts are obtained which state that there are so many differences and similarities between digital learning and mobile learning. That way, it is important to discuss this so that it can reduce misconceptions about digital learning and mobile learning. For more details presented in Table 6. Table 6. Differences and similarities digital learning and mobile learning Description Digital Learning Mobile Learning Understanding Digital learning is a digital learning resource that includes many elements to be used in learning [32] Mobile learning is a learning model that adopts the development of mobile technology and mobile devices (HP) as a learning medium [33] Function Facilitates the learning process and presents more interesting teaching materials [32] As an alternative to mobile or mobile-based learning services [34] Forms/types of • Blended learning • Online Learning/E-learning • Use of technology (applications, google, and the like) • Adaptive learning • Applications • Web Existence continues to grow Continuously develops Devices HP, notebook, Tablet, PDA, Computer, Web, PC, TV, CD-ROM, and etc Mobile, notebook, tablet, smartphone and PDAs. Features Video Streaming/live, virtual whiteboards, quizzes/virtual exams, discussion threads, online questionnaires, online TV, and etc [35] Features that can be used Based on the type of application installed [36] (Continued) iJIM ‒ Vol. 16, No. 08, 2022 27 Paper—Top 100 Cited Publications for The Last Thirty Years in Digital Learning and Mobile Learning Description Digital Learning Mobile Learning Scope Covers all bases digital According to the specs of the device used Approach All media Certain applications Size Flexible According to device Application All applications Limited applications Place Virtual Classroom online, teachers in class, and internet labs Flexible learning (anywhere and anytime) Access Internet Internet Based on Table 6 shows the differences and similarities between digital learning and mobile learning. Lots of people say that digital learning and mobile learning are the same thing. Even though there are differences between the two things [38]. In addi- tion, digital learning includes all what learning is contained in mobile learning. This is because learning that uses mobile learning must be in digital form, whether it be appli- cations, e-books, web, and etc [34, 35, 36, 38]. However, digital learning has so many other devices such as computers, PCs, tablets, and etc [39]. While mobile learning is more dependent on applications, Google, and the web [36]. If illustrated, it will look like Figure 6. Fig. 6. Relationship illustration digital learning and mobile learning 3.9 The advantages and disadvantages of digital learning and mobile learning The results of the study of literature and scientific sources related to the topic of digital learning and mobile learning obtained the fact that each of them has advantages and disadvantages in each field. For more details, see Table 7 below. Table 6. Differences and similarities digital learning and mobile learning (Continued) 28 http://www.i-jim.org Paper—Top 100 Cited Publications for The Last Thirty Years in Digital Learning and Mobile Learning Table 7. Advantages and disadvantages of digital learning and mobile learning Digital Learning Mobile Learning Advantages • Relatively expensive according to the device used • Learning depends on the device used (for example, a computer should not be used while traveling while a tablet can be used anywhere) • Can eliminate some formal learning and make it more interesting • Types of wireless communication to access all information • Multiple delivery and content creation options • Facilitates both individual and collaborative learning experiences • helps provide and support literacy, numeracy and language learning • Can increase self-confidence in education • Increase skills in using technology in learning activities • Can have discussions without having to meet • Can use teaching materials as needed • Support distance • learning that develops in everyday life • Learning can be followed by more students • Relatively inexpensive because it only uses certain • cellphones Learning can be done anywhere, anytime, and is personalized • Can eliminate some formal learning and make it more interesting • Types of wireless communication to access all information • Multiple delivery and content creation options • Facilitate learning experiences both individually and collaboratively • to help provide and support literacy, numeracy and language learning • Can increase self-confidence in education • Increase skills in using technology in learning activities • Can conduct discussions without having to meet • Can access teaching materials needed at any time and certainly more attractive • Easier to carry and use • Supports distance learning Take • advantage of emerging technologies in everyday life • Learning can be followed by more students Disadvantages • Can only be used use by people who can afford • It Always need internet access • Quickly makes you bored because you don’t see each other • Practical learning can’t be done maximally • Depends on a good network • Development and learning is more about knowledge • Can’t monitor students individually • Learning depends on device battery percentage • Abstract learning is very difficult to understand • The atmosphere must be conducive • Requires a lot of help tools such as, Pen Tab, webcam, a good headset. • Can only be used by people who can afford • It always requires internet access • Limited with storage from the device used • Large practicum applications cannot be installed • Depends on a good network • Development and learning is more about knowledge • Cannot monitor students individually • Learning depends on HP battery percentage • Many mobile differences such as iOS, Android, and Apple that can only be used on certain cell phones • Atmosphere must be conducive • Small memory capacity • Small screen view Based on Table 7 shows the advantages and disadvantages of digital learning and mobile learning. Digital learning and mobile learning are learning alternatives that are growing rapidly in line with technological developments. In addition, the COVID-19 pandemic is still ongoing so that learning is shifted to online. There are advantages and disadvantages to each of the learning carried out as written in Table 5. Actually digital learning has been popularized since 1960 by the University of Illinois with the aim only to convey information to students. However, along with the development of technology, digital learning continues to grow rapidly so that it is often used in learning iJIM ‒ Vol. 16, No. 08, 2022 29 Paper—Top 100 Cited Publications for The Last Thirty Years in Digital Learning and Mobile Learning including e-books, e-modul, PPT, and etc [32][41–43]. In this way, new innovations such as e-learning, blended learning, and mobile learning emerge. 3.10 Research implication • To Researcher, can be the basis for further research in the field of digital-based implementation which has similarities but is in fact different. In addition, you can find out trends in digital-based learning that are in accordance with certain condi- tions, both nationally and internationally. • To Librarian, can be a source of new research and knowledge related to the devel- opment of digital-based learning in an increasingly advanced era with technology • To Policymakers, can provide sources of information on digital research topics that are growing rapidly so that they can make decisions with certain considerations based on valid information obtained. 4 Conclusion Digital learning and mobile learning are two different things but still have something in common. Learning with mobile learning is an innovation from digital learning. Based on Scopus data from 1992 to 2021, digital learning and mobile learning publications have on average experienced a significant increase. This is due to following technolog- ical developments and due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Based on the results that have been presented, it can be seen the trends, differences, similarities, advantages, and disadvantages of digital learning and mobile learning. Thus, it is hoped that this discovery can be a reference for future discoveries in aspects of digital-based learning. 5 Acknowledgment The author’s gratitude goes to to the Kementerian Pendidikan, Kebudayaan, Riset, dan Teknologi Republik Indonesia who has supported funding. 6 References [1] Mitchell, T., Cohen, W., Hruschka, E., Talukdar, P., Yang, B., Betteridge, J., Carlson, A., Dalvi, B., Gardner, M., Kisiel, B. and Krishnamurthy, J. “Never-ending learning.” Commu- nications of the ACM. vol. 61. no. 5. pp. 103–115. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1145/3191513 [2] Abujabal, Abdalghani, Rishiraj Saha Roy, Mohamed Yahya, and Gerhard Weikum. “Never-ending learning for open-domain question answering over knowledge bases.” In Proceedings of the 2018 World Wide Web Conference. pp. 1053–1062. 2018. https://doi. org/10.1145/3178876.3186004 [3] Mustapha, Ishamuddin, Nguyen Thuy Van, Masoumeh Shahverdi, Muhammad Imran Qureshi, and Nohman Khan. “Effectiveness of digital technology in education during COVID-19 Pandemic. A bibliometric analysis.” International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies. vol. 15. no. 8. 2021. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijim.v15i08.20415 30 http://www.i-jim.org https://doi.org/10.1145/3191513 https://doi.org/10.1145/3178876.3186004 https://doi.org/10.1145/3178876.3186004 https://doi.org/10.3991/ijim.v15i08.20415 Paper—Top 100 Cited Publications for The Last Thirty Years in Digital Learning and Mobile Learning [4] Stewart, Vivien. A world-class education: Learning from international models of excellence and innovation. ASCD. 2012. Available: https://books.google.co.id/ [5] Leicht, Alexander, Bernard Combes, Won Jung Byun, and Adesuwa Vanessa Agbedahin. “From Agenda 21 to Target 4.7: The development of education for sustainable development.” Issues and trends in Education for Sustainable Development, 25. 2018. Available: https:// books.google.co.id [6] McGrath, Simon. Education and development. Routledge. 2018 Available: https://books. google.co.id/ [7] Kioupi, Vasiliki, and Nikolaos Voulvoulis. “Education for sustainable development: A systemic framework for connecting the SDGs to educational outcomes.” Sustainability. vol. 11. no. 21. pp. 6104. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126133 [8] Nazar, Raima, Imran Sharif Chaudhry, Sajid Ali, and Muhammad Faheem. “Role of qual- ity education for sustainable development goals (SDGS).” International Journal of Social Sciences. vol. 4. no. 2. pp. 486–501. https://doi.org/10.20319/pijss.2018.42.486501 [9] Hart, Cassandra MD, Dan Berger, Brian Jacob, Susanna Loeb, and Michael Hill. “Online learning, offline outcomes: Online course taking and high school student performance.” Aera Open. vol. 5. no. 1. pp. 1–17. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858419832852 [10] Leo, Shirley, Nizar Mohammad Alsharari, Jainambu Abbas, and Muhammad Turki Alshurideh. “From offline to online learning: a qualitative study of challenges and oppor- tunities as a response to the COVID-19 pandemic in the UAE higher education context.” The Effect of Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) on Business Intelligence. vol. 334. pp. 203. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-67151-8_12 [11] Eltalhi, Saria, Huda Kutrani, Reem Imsallim, and Mikal Elrfadi. “The Usability of BenKids Mobile Learning App in Vocabulary Teaching for Preschool.” International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies. vol. 15. no. 24. pp. 4–18. 2021. https://doi.org/10.3991/ ijim.v15i24.22237 [12] Sobral, S. R. “Mobile Learning in Higher Education: A Bibliometric Review”. Interna- tional Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies. (iJIM). vol. 4. no. 11. pp. 153–170. 2020. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijim.v14i11.13973 [13] Mustapha, Ishamuddin, Nguyen Thuy Van, Masoumeh Shahverdi, Muhammad Imran Qureshi, and Nohman Khan. “Effectiveness of digital technology in education during COVID-19 pandemic. A bibliometric analysis.” International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies .(iJIM). vol. 15. no. 08. pp. 136–154. 2021. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijim. v15i08.20415 [14] Van, Nguyen Thuy, Alhamzah F. Abbas, Hassan Abuhassna, Fareed Awae, and Daniel Dike. “Digital readiness for social educators in health care and online learning during COVID-19 pandemic: A bibliometric analysis.” International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies (iJIM). vol. 15. no. 18. pp. 104–115. 2021. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijim.v15i18.25529 [15] Damopolii, Insar, Theresia Lumembang, and Genç Osman İlhan. “Digital Comics in Online Learning During COVID-19: Its Effect on Student Cognitive Learning Outcomes.” Interna- tional Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies .(iJIM). vol. 5. no. 19. pp. 33–47. 2021. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijim.v15i19.23395 [16] Lai, Chiu-Lin. “Trends of mobile learning: A review of the top 100 highly cited papers.” British Journal of Educational Technology. vol. 15. no. 3. pp. 721–742. 2020. https://doi. org/10.1111/bjet.12884 [17] Joosten, Tanya, Kate Lee-McCarthy, Lindsey Harness, and Ryan Paulus. “Digital Learning Innovation Trends.” Online Learning Consortium 2020. Available: https://onlinelearning- consortium.org/ iJIM ‒ Vol. 16, No. 08, 2022 31 https://books.google.co.id/ https://books.google.co.id https://books.google.co.id https://books.google.co.id/ https://books.google.co.id/ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126133 https://doi.org/10.20319/pijss.2018.42.486501 https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858419832852 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-67151-8_12 https://doi.org/10.3991/ijim.v15i24.22237 https://doi.org/10.3991/ijim.v15i24.22237 https://doi.org/10.3991/ijim.v14i11.13973 https://doi.org/10.3991/ijim.v15i08.20415 https://doi.org/10.3991/ijim.v15i08.20415 https://doi.org/10.3991/ijim.v15i18.25529 https://doi.org/10.3991/ijim.v15i19.23395 https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12884 https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12884 https://onlinelearningconsortium.org/ https://onlinelearningconsortium.org/ Paper—Top 100 Cited Publications for The Last Thirty Years in Digital Learning and Mobile Learning [18] Siwach, Anil Kumar, and Satish Kumar. “Bibliometric Analysis of Research Publications of Maharshi Dayanand University (Rohtak) During 2000–2013.” DESIDOC Journal of Library & Information Technology. vol. 35. no. 1. pp. 17–24. 2015. https://doi.org/10.14429/ djlit.35.1.7789 [19] Yanuarti, Eva Ayu, and Nadi Suprapto. “Ten Years of Research on History of Science (Physics): A Bibliometric Analysis.” Studies in Philosophy of Science and Education. vol. 3. no. 1. pp. 7–16. 2021. https://doi.org/10.46627/sipose.v2i1.66 [20] Yeung, A. W. K., T. K. Goto, and W. K. Leung. “Brain responses to stimuli mimicking dental treatment among non-phobic individuals: A meta-analysis.” Oral diseases. vol. 25. no. 1. pp. 34–43. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1111/odi.12819 [21] Parmar, Seema, Anil Kumar Siwach, and Ashwani Kumar. “Fifty years research output in oral submucous fibrosis: A bibliometric analysis of publications from 1967 to 2016.” DESI- DOC Journal of Library & Information Technology. vol. 40. no. 2. pp. 470–478. 2020. https://doi.org/10.14429/djlit.40.02.14727 [22] Merigó Lindahl, José, and Jian Bo Yang. “A bibliometric analysis of operations research and management science.” Omega. vol. 73. pp. 37–48. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.omega.2016.12.004 [23] Zupic, Ivan, and Tomaž Čater. “Bibliometric methods in management and organiza- tion.” Organizational research methods. vol. 18. no. 3. pp. 429–472. 2015. https://doi. org/10.1177/1094428114562629 [24] Hashim, Kamarul Faizal, Ammar Rashid, and Shadi Atalla. “social media for teaching and learning within higher education institution: A bibliometric analysis of the literature (2008–2018).” International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies. (iJIM). vol. 12. no. 7. pp. 4–19. 2018. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijim.v12i7.9634 [25] Suprapto, Nadi, Nining Widyah Kusnanik, Sri Setyo Iriani, Setya Chendra Wibawa, Sujarwanto Sujarwanto, Bambang Yulianto, Suprapto Suprapto, Agus Hariyanto, and Nurhasan Nurhasan. “The Comparison of Scimago Institutions Rankings (SIR), Scopus, and SINTA Profile: A Case of The Top Indonesian Institutions,” Library Philosophy and Practice (e-journal). pp. 5788. 2021. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac [26] Xie, Lin, Zhenhao Chen, Hongli Wang, Chaojun Zheng, and Jianyuan Jiang. “Bibliometric and visualized analysis of scientific publications on atlantoaxial spine surgery based on Web of Science and VOSViewer.” World neurosurgery. vol. 137. pp. 435–442. 2020. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.wneu.2020.01.171 [27] Yuyun, Lu, Huang Mei, Shi Xinlei, and Chen Baoyan. “Bibliometric and visualization analysis of breast cancer stem cell literature from 2011 to 2020 based on Web of Science database.” Chinese Journal of Tissue Engineering Research. vol. 25. no. 25. pp. 4001–4008. 2021. [28] Kulakli, A., and Osmanaj, V. “Global research on big data in relation with Artificial Intelli- gence (A bibliometric Study: 2008–2019).”. International Journal of Online and Biomedi- cal Engineering. vol. 16. no. 2. pp. 31–46. 2020. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijoe.v16i02.12617 [29] Van Eck, Nees Jan, and Ludo Waltman. “VOSViewer Manual: Manual for VOSViewer version 1.6. 15.” Leiden: Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS) of Leiden University. 2020 [30] Colavizza, Giovanni, Rodrigo Costas, Vincent A. Traag, Nees Jan van Eck, Thed van Leeuwen, and Ludo Waltman. “A scientometric overview of CORD-19.” Plos one. vol. 16. no. 1. p. e0244839. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0244839 [31] Putri, Cindi Ratna, Sofyan M. Soleh, Antomi Saregar, Adyt Anugrah, and Nur Endah Susilowati. “Bibliometric analysis: Augmented reality-based physics laboratory with VOSViewer software.” In Journal of Physics: Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science. vol. 1796. no. 1. p. 012056. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1796/1/012056 32 http://www.i-jim.org https://doi.org/10.14429/djlit.35.1.7789 https://doi.org/10.14429/djlit.35.1.7789 https://doi.org/10.46627/sipose.v2i1.66 https://doi.org/10.1111/odi.12819 https://doi.org/10.14429/djlit.40.02.14727 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2016.12.004 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2016.12.004 https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428114562629 https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428114562629 https://doi.org/10.3991/ijim.v12i7.9634 https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2020.01.171 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2020.01.171 https://doi.org/10.3991/ijoe.v16i02.12617 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0244839 https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1796/1/012056 Paper—Top 100 Cited Publications for The Last Thirty Years in Digital Learning and Mobile Learning [32] Hitchcock, Laurel Iverson, Melanie Sage, and Nancy J. Smyth. Teaching Social Work with Digital Technology. Council on Social Work Education. 1701 Duke Street Suite 200, Alexandria, VA 22314, 2019. Available: https://eric.ed.gov/ [33] Kim, Joshua, and Edward J. Maloney. Learning innovation and the future of higher educa- tion. JHU Press, 2020. Available: https://books.google.co.id/ [34] Mitra, Susanta, and Somsubhra Gupta. “Mobile learning under personal cloud with a virtual- ization framework for outcome based education.” Education and Information Technologies. vol. 25. no. 3. pp. 2129–2156. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-10043-z [35] Langer, A.M. Information Technology and Organizational Learning: Managing Behavioral Change in the Digital Age. CRC Press. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1201/978315143804 [36] Grant, Michael M. “Difficulties in defining mobile learning: Analysis, design characteris- tics, and implications.” Educational Technology Research and Development. vol. 67. no. 2. pp. 361–388. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-018-09641-4 [37] Boonroungrut, Chinun, Wulan Patria Saroinsong, and Natthaya Thamdee. “Research on Students in COVID-19 Pandemic Outbreaks: A Bibliometric Network Analysis.” Interna- tional Journal of Instruction. vol. 15. no. 1. pp. 457–472. 2022. http://www.e-iji.net/; https:// doi.org/10.29333/iji.2022.15126a [38] Mehdipour, Yousef, and Hamideh Zerehkafi. “Mobile learning for education: Benefits and challenges.” International Journal of Computational Engineering Research. vol. 3. no. 6. pp. 93–101. 2013. Available: http://www.ijceronline.com/ [39] Veletsianos, G. ed. Emergence and innovation in digital learning: Foundations and applica- tions. Athabasca University Press. 2016. Available: https://books.google.co.id/; https://doi. org/10.15215/aupress/9781771991490.01 [40] Appleford, S.J., Berry, P., Brighton, J., Bruce, B.C., Buck, A., Burbules, N.C., Burton, O.V., Cash, T., Craig, A., Delacruz, E.M. and Diaz, L.B. Ubiquitous learning. University of Illi- nois Press. 2010. Available: https://books.google.co.id/ [41] Lin, Ming-Hung, and Huang-G. Chen. “A study of the effects of digital learning on learn- ing motivation and learning outcome.” Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, vol. 13. no. 7. pp. 3553–3564, 2017. https://doi.org/10.12973/ eurasia.2017.00744a [42] Vander Ark, Tom. Getting smart: How digital learning is changing the world. John Wiley & Sons, 2011. Book. 2011. Available: https://books.google.co.id/ [43] Asrial, Syahrial, Dwi Agus Kurniawan, Faizal Chan, Retno Septianingsih, and Rahmat Perdana, “Multimedia innovation 4.0 in education: E-modul ethnoconstructivism,” Uni- versal Journal of Educational Research, vol. 7. no. 10. pp. 2098–2107, 2019. https://doi. org/10.13189/ujer.2019.071007 7 Authors All author are members from grant research and take part in the jobs. Dr. Binar Kurnia Prahani, Mohd Zaidi Bin Amiruddin, Prof. Dr. Budi Jatmiko, Assoc. Prof. Nadi Suprapto, Ph.D. are researcher in Universitas Negeri Surabaya, Surabaya, Indonesia. Tan Amelia, S.Kom., M.MT. is researcher in Universitas Dinamika, Surabaya, Indonesia. Article submitted 2022-01-28. Resubmitted 2022-02-24. Final acceptance 2022-02-24. Final version published as submitted by the authors. iJIM ‒ Vol. 16, No. 08, 2022 33 https://eric.ed.gov/ https://books.google.co.id/ https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-019-10043-z https://doi.org/10.1201/978315143804 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-018-09641-4 http://www.e-iji.net/ https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2022.15126a https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2022.15126a http://www.ijceronline.com/ https://books.google.co.id/ https://doi.org/10.15215/aupress/9781771991490.01 https://doi.org/10.15215/aupress/9781771991490.01 https://books.google.co.id/ https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2017.00744a https://doi.org/10.12973/eurasia.2017.00744a https://books.google.co.id/ https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2019.071007 https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2019.071007