Cybersecurity Research in Accounting Information Systems: A Review and Framework
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT The study of cybersecurity issues plays a fundamental role in accounting information systems (AIS) research. However, as the importance of cybersecurity has continued to grow in other disciplines, such as computer science and management information systems, it has become less clear what is distinct about AIS-based cybersecurity research, what unique insights AIS research has contributed to the study of cybersecurity, and what promising directions for AIS research into cybersecurity remain untapped. In order to answer these questions, we perform a literature review covering 56 articles published in 11 AIS-oriented journals. We find four distinct, yet related, categories of research inquiry: cybersecurity risks and threats, cybersecurity controls, cybersecurity-related assurance, and cybersecurity breaches. In highlighting the key insights uncovered from these four areas, we frame “what we know,” as well as “what remains to be learned,” by outlining a detailed proposal of future research opportunities for AIS researchers.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it