An Analysis of Information Systems Literature: Contributions to Fraud Research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study analyzes the knowledge and methods used in information systems (IS) journals in the area of financial statement fraud. The purpose of this analysis is to provide tools and ideas to support interdisciplinary research in accounting and information systems for financial statement fraud topics. The study presents an analysis of five top ranking IS journals (MIS Quarterly, Information Systems Research, Communications of the ACM, Management Science, and Journal of MIS) and five top ranking IS conferences [International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS), Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), International Federation for Information Processing (IFIP), International Conference on Decision Support Systems (DSS), and Decision Sciences Institute National Conference (DSI)]. The literature found from these sources are categorized and presented by year, journal, contribution, type of study, methodology, data set usage, and research design. Although the literature varies, a common thread in many studies is the use of data mining and/or machine learning models to detect fraud.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.018 | 0.057 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.069 | 0.071 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".