Wasit Journal of Computer and Mathematics Science Decision-making in Cybersecurity: A Bibliometric analysis

Abstract

This bibliometric analysis explores research trends and patterns in the intersection of decision-making and cybersecurity. Using Scopus data, we conducted a systematic search and identified 4,637 relevant documents published between 2018-2024. Quantitative analysis reveals rising annual publications with a peak in 2023, the predominance of journal articles, and robust international collaboration networks. China and the USA lead global scientific production. Key topics include risk assessment, network security, decision support systems, and emerging technologies like machine learning and artificial intelligence. Core journals with high citation impact such as IEEE Access and Expert Systems with Applications highlight significant sources of literature. The study provides a holistic overview of the landscape, evolution, contributors, and themes within decision-making and cybersecurity research.

Full text

Wasit Journal of Computer and Mathematics Science
Journal Homepage: https://wjcm.uowasit.edu.iq/index.php/WJCM
e-ISSN: 2788-5879 p-ISSN: 2788-5879
Decision-making in Cybersecurity: A Bibliometric analysis
Mohammad Aljanabi1,∗, Ahmed Hussein Ali1, Mohanad Ghazi Yaseen2,
Mostafa Abdulghafoor Mohammed2and Sahar Yousif Mohammed3
1Department of Computer, College of Education, Al-Iraqia University, Baghdad, Iraq
2Imam Aladham University College, Iraq
3Computer Science Department, Computer Science &Information Technology College, Anbar University, Anbar, 31001, Iraq
*Corresponding Author: Mohammad Aljanabi
DOI: https://doi.org/10.52866/ijcsm.0000.00.00.000
Received: Augest 2023; Accepted: November 2023; Available online: December 2023
ABSTRACT: This bibliometric analysis explores research trends and patterns in the intersection of decision-making
and cybersecurity. Using Scopus data, we conducted a systematic search and identified 4,637 relevant documents
published between 2018-2024. Quantitative analysis reveals rising annual publications with a peak in 2023, the
predominance of journal articles, and robust international collaboration networks. China and the USA lead global
scientific production. Key topics include risk assessment, network security, decision support systems, and emerging
technologies like machine learning and artificial intelligence. Core journals with high citation impact such as IEEE
Access and Expert Systems with Applications highlight significant sources of literature. The study provides a holistic
overview of the landscape, evolution, contributors, and themes within decision-making and cybersecurity research.
Keywords: Bibliometric analysis, Decision-making, Cybersecurity, Research trends, Science mapping
1. INTRODUCTION
Effective decision-making is crucial for developing robust cybersecurity strategies and policies across different sec-
tors [1–4]. However, the increasing scale and sophistication of cyber threats [5], [6]coupled with the complexities of
modern technological environments [7], [8] pose significant challenges for decision-makers. Therefore, there is a growing
need to advance knowledge on systematic and evidence-based approaches to decision-making pertaining to various aspects
of cybersecurity.
Despite the importance, current literature lacks a comprehensive bibliometric assessment and science mapping analysis
to understand the structure, dynamics, and conceptual themes in this critical domain. Most reviews employ qualitative
scoping methods focusing only on specialized sub-topics such as security frameworks, risk analysis models, or network
intrusion systems [9–11]. A cohesive overview mapping the trajectories, global contributors, interconnections, and evolv-
ing topics across the broader area of decision-making and cybersecurity can provide crucial insights [11–16].
This study aims to bridge this gap by conducting a large-scale bibliometric analysis using Scopus database, delineating
the contours, growth trends, authorship patterns, core sources, prominent countries, underlying themes, and terminological
structure within existing literature. The focus spans diverse aspects ranging from technical dimensions of security policies
and controls to behavioral considerations in risk assessment and preparedness. The findings can inform future research
directions and enable interested stakeholders to identify influential work, major contributors, and potential collaboration
opportunities in this domain.
*Corresponding author: mohammad.aljanabi@alsalam.edu.iq
https://wjcm.uowasit.edu.iq/index.php/wjcm
47

Aljanabi et al. , Wasit Journal of Computer and Mathematics Science, Vol. 2 No. 4 (2023) p. 47-67
2. METHODOLOGY
2.1 RESEARCH SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES
The primary objective of this bibliometric analysis is to comprehensively explore the landscape of scholarly literature
related to decision making in the context of cybersecurity. The study aims to identify trends, key contributors, and the
evolution of research themes in this intersection of decision making and cybersecurity. To achieve this, we conducted a
systematic bibliographic search in the Scopus database using carefully selected keywords.
2.2 SEARCH STRATEGY
The search query employed in Scopus was designed to be inclusive and cover various facets of decision making and
cybersecurity. The search query utilized the following Boolean logic:
("decision making" OR "decision support") AND ("cybersecurity" OR "information security" OR "computer security"
OR "risk assessment" OR "threat detection" OR "incident response" OR "information technology" OR "IT security" OR
"cyber threats" OR "network security" OR "security policies" OR "security management" OR "vulnerability assessment"
OR "attack detection" OR "security frameworks")
2.3 DATA SCREENING:
Total Documents: A total of 4637 documents were retrieved based on the search criteria.
Exclusion Criteria: Articles not relevant to the intersection of decision-making and cybersecurity were excluded during
the screening process.
2.4 INCLUSION AND EXCLUSION CRITERIA
Articles included in this analysis were required to be related to decision making in the field of cybersecurity. Exclusion
criteria involved removing irrelevant articles that did not contribute significantly to the understanding of the intersection
between decision making and cybersecurity.
2.5 DATA COLLECTION
The Scopus database was queried using the defined search strategy, and the retrieved records were exported for further
analysis. The search was conducted up to the latest available date at the time of data collection.
2.6 COMPLETENESS OF BIBLIOGRAPHIC METADATA ASSESSMENT
A crucial aspect of our analysis was the assessment of the completeness of bibliographic metadata. Various metadata
fields, such as authorship details, document type, journal information, language, publication year, title, total citations,
abstract, affiliation, DOI, keywords, corresponding author, keywords plus, cited references, number of cited references,
and science categories, were evaluated. The completeness assessment is summarized in the table 1 below:
2.7 QUALITY CONTROL
To ensure the reliability of the data, quality control measures were implemented during data extraction and analysis.
The process involved cross-checking and verification by multiple researchers to minimize errors and enhance the accuracy
of the findings.
2.8 DATA ANALYSIS
Quantitative and qualitative analyses were performed on the collected data, providing insights into the publication
trends, authorship patterns, and thematic clusters within the selected literature.
2.9 LIMITATIONS
It is important to acknowledge the limitations of this bibliometric analysis, such as potential biases in the Scopus
database and the inherent limitations of bibliometric methods in capturing the entirety of the research landscape.
3. RESULTS
48

Aljanabi et al. , Wasit Journal of Computer and Mathematics Science, Vol. 2 No. 4 (2023) p. 47-67
Table 1. data completeness
Metadata Description Missing Counts Missing
%
Status
AU Author 0 0.00 Excellent
DT Document Type 0 0.00 Excellent
SO Journal 0 0.00 Excellent
LA Language 0 0.00 Excellent
PY Publication Year 0 0.00 Excellent
TI Title 0 0.00 Excellent
TC Total Citation 0 0.00 Excellent
AB 10 0.22 Good
C1 Affiliation 195 4.21 Good
DI DOI 300 6.47 Good
DE 532 11.47 Acceptable
RP Corresponding Author 698 15.05 Acceptable
ID 946 20.40 Poor
CR Cited References 4637 100.00 Completely
missing
NR Number of Cited References 4637 100.00 Completely
missing
WC Science Categories 4637 100.00 Completely
missing
3.1 MAIN INFORMATION ABOUT DATA:
Timespan: The analysis covers the period from 2018 to 2024.
Sources: A total of 1,040 sources, including journals, books, etc., were identified in the dataset.
Documents: The dataset comprises 4,637 documents related to decision-making and cybersecurity.
Annual Growth Rate %: The annual growth rate was calculated at -44.46%, indicating a decrease in the number of
publications over the specified period.
Document Average Age: The average age of documents in the dataset is 2.08 years.
Average Citations per Document: On average, each document in the dataset has been cited 12.49 times.
References: Each document in the dataset has, on average, 1 reference.
3.1.1. Document Contents:
Author’s Keywords (DE): There are 13,362 Author’s Keywords (DE) identified in the dataset, indicating key thematic
areas covered in the literature.
3.1.2. Authors:
Total Authors: A total of 12,844 unique authors contributed to the dataset.
3.1.3. Authors Collaboration:
Single-authored Docs: There are 473 documents with single authors.
Co-Authors per Doc: On average, each document is authored by 3.9 individuals.
International Co-authorships %: Collaboration on an international level is observed in 30.62% of the documents.
3.1.4. Document Types:
Article: The majority of documents (4,188) fall under the category of "article."
Article: There are 42 documents categorized as "article article."
Article Conference Review: Two documents are identified as "article conference review."
Article Review: One document is categorized as "article review."
Conference Review: A total of 189 documents are classified as "conference review."
Review: 214 documents fall under the "review" category.
Review Article: One document is identified as a "review article."
These results provide a comprehensive overview of the main characteristics of the dataset, including the temporal
distribution, sources, document content, authorship details, collaboration patterns, and document types within the realm
49

Aljanabi et al. , Wasit Journal of Computer and Mathematics Science, Vol. 2 No. 4 (2023) p. 47-67
of decision-making and cybersecurity literature from 2018 to 2024. Table 2 show the summary of main information
Table 2. main infomration
Description Results
MAIN INFORMATION ABOUT DATA
Timespan 2018:2024
Sources (Journals, Books, etc) 1040
Documents 4637
Annual Growth Rate % -44.46
Document Average Age 2.08
Average citations per doc 12.49
1
DOCUMENT CONTENTS
22114
Author’s Keywords (DE) 13362
AUTHORS
Authors 12844
Authors of single-authored docs 266
AUTHORS COLLABORATION
Single-authored docs 473
Co-Authors per Doc 3.9
International co-authorships % 30.62
DOCUMENT TYPES
article 4188
article article 42
article conference review 2
article review 1
conference review 189
review 214
review article 1
3.2 ANNUAL SCIENTIFIC PRODUCTION
The annual scientific production in the field of decision-making and cybersecurity, based on the provided table, is
summarized as follows:
Table 3. 3 - annual scientific production
Year Articles
2018 511
2019 609
2020 691
2021 784
2022 1005
2023 1022
2024 15
This representation illustrates the changing landscape of scientific production in this domain over the specified years,
with a noticeable increase in the number of articles until 2023, followed by a significant decrease in 2024. Figure 1 shows
the annual scientific production
3.3 AVERAGE CITATION PER YEAR
The average citation per year, based on the provided table, is presented as follows:
•2018:
•Mean Citations per Article: 25.55
•Number of Articles: 511
50

Aljanabi et al. , Wasit Journal of Computer and Mathematics Science, Vol. 2 No. 4 (2023) p. 47-67
FIGURE 1. annual scientific production
•Mean Citations per Year: 4.26
•Citable Years: 6
•2019:
•Mean Citations per Article: 21.89
•Number of Articles: 609
•Mean Citations per Year: 4.38
•Citable Years: 5
•2020:
•Mean Citations per Article: 20.18
•Number of Articles: 691
•Mean Citations per Year: 5.04
•Citable Years: 4
•2021:
•Mean Citations per Article: 13.5
•Number of Articles: 784
•Mean Citations per Year: 4.5
•Citable Years: 3
•2022:
•Mean Citations per Article: 5.27
•Number of Articles: 1005
•Mean Citations per Year: 2.63
•Citable Years: 2
•2023:
•Mean Citations per Article: 1.68
•Number of Articles: 1022
•Mean Citations per Year: 1.68
•Citable Years: 1
•2024:
•Mean Citations per Article: 0.07
•Number of Articles: 15
•Mean Citations per Year: 0
•Citable Years: 0
This analysis provides insights into the citation trends over the specified years, indicating variations in the mean
citations per article, mean citations per year, and the number of citable years for each respective year. Table 4 and figure
2 show the summary of average citation per year
3.4 MOST RELEVANT SOURCES
3.4.1. IEEE ACCESS
•Articles: 203
51

Aljanabi et al. , Wasit Journal of Computer and Mathematics Science, Vol. 2 No. 4 (2023) p. 47-67
Table 4. average citation per year
Year MeanTCperArt N MeanTCperYear CitableYears
2018 25.55 511 4.26 6
2019 21.89 609 4.38 5
2020 20.18 691 5.04 4
2021 13.5 784 4.5 3
2022 5.27 1005 2.63 2
2023 1.68 1022 1.68 1
2024 0.07 15 0 0
FIGURE 2. average citation per year
•Details: IEEE ACCESS has emerged as a prominent source in the field, with 203 articles contributing to the body
of knowledge on decision-making and cybersecurity. The breadth and depth of publications in this source suggest its
significance in shaping the discourse within the research domain.
3.4.2. SUSTAINABILITY (SWITZERLAND
•Articles: 169
•Details: The journal Sustainability (Switzerland) is a noteworthy source with 169 articles. Its focus on sustainability
aligns with the broader themes of decision-making and cybersecurity, indicating a crucial intersection between environ-
mental considerations and information security.
3.4.3. ENERGIES
•Articles: 89
•Details: Energies, with 89 articles, is a key source providing insights into the intersection of decision-making and
cybersecurity in the context of energy systems. The contributions from this source likely cover a spectrum of topics related
to energy security and resilience.
3.4.4. JOURNAL OF INTELLIGENT AND FUZZY SYSTEMS
•Articles: 74
•Details: The Journal of Intelligent and Fuzzy Systems is a significant source with 74 articles. Its focus on intelligent
systems suggests a connection between decision-making processes and advanced computational approaches, contributing
to the evolution of cybersecurity strategies.
3.4.5. EXPERT SYSTEMS WITH APPLICATIONS
•Articles: 68
•Details: Expert Systems with Applications, with 68 articles, is a source emphasizing the practical applications of
decision support systems. The contributions from this source likely explore real-world implementations and solutions in
the cybersecurity domain.
52

Aljanabi et al. , Wasit Journal of Computer and Mathematics Science, Vol. 2 No. 4 (2023) p. 47-67
3.4.6. SENSORS
•Articles: 61
•Details: Sensors, with 61 articles, signifies the importance of sensor technologies in decision-making and cyberse-
curity. The content from this source may delve into the role of sensors in threat detection, incident response, and overall
information security.
3.4.7. APPLIED SCIENCES (SWITZERLAND
•Articles: 57
•Details: Applied Sciences (Switzerland) is another Swiss-based source with 57 articles. The interdisciplinary nature
of applied sciences suggests a holistic exploration of decision-making aspects in cybersecurity, potentially addressing
practical challenges and solutions.
3.4.8. COMPUTERS AND SECURITY
•Articles: 53
•Details: Computers and Security, with 53 articles, is a source specifically dedicated to the intersection of computing
technologies and security concerns. The articles in this source may provide insights into technological advancements and
their implications for decision-making in cybersecurity.
3.4.9. JOURNAL OF LOSS PREVENTION IN THE PROCESS INDUSTRIES
•Articles: 50
•Details: The Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, with 50 articles, suggests a focus on risk assessment
and management in industrial contexts. The content from this source may contribute to understanding decision-making
strategies to prevent and mitigate security incidents.
3.4.10. SOFT COMPUTING
•Articles: 48
•Details: Soft Computing, with 48 articles, indicates a source that explores the application of soft computing tech-
niques in decision-making processes related to cybersecurity. The content may involve fuzzy logic, neural networks, and
other computational methods.
These sources collectively represent a diverse range of journals, each contributing significantly to the understanding of
decision-making and cybersecurity. Researchers in the field can find valuable insights and perspectives by exploring the
content published in these key sources. Table 5 and figure 3 show the summary of most relevant sources.
Table 5. most 10 relevant sources
Sources Articles
IEEE ACCESS 203
SUSTAINABILITY (SWITZERLAND) 169
ENERGIES 89
JOURNAL OF INTELLIGENT AND FUZZY SYSTEMS 74
EXPERT SYSTEMS WITH APPLICATIONS 68
SENSORS 61
APPLIED SCIENCES (SWITZERLAND) 57
COMPUTERS AND SECURITY 53
JOURNAL OF LOSS PREVENTION IN THE PROCESS INDUSTRIES 50
SOFT COMPUTING 48
3.5 CORE SOURCES BASED ON BRADFORD LAW
Bradford’s Law of Scattering provides insights into the distribution of literature in a field, emphasizing that a small
number of sources contribute significantly to the overall body of knowledge. The following core sources, based on the
provided table, adhere to Bradford’s Law and play a central role in the field of decision-making and cybersecurity:
Zone 1: Core Sources
1. IEEE ACCESS (Rank 1) :
•Frequency (Freq): 203
•Cumulative Frequency (cumFreq ): 203
53

Aljanabi et al. , Wasit Journal of Computer and Mathematics Science, Vol. 2 No. 4 (2023) p. 47-67
FIGURE 3. most relevant sources
•Zone: Zone 1
2. SUSTAINABILITY (SWITZERLAND (Rank 2) :
•Frequency (Freq): 169
•Cumulative Frequency (cumFreq ): 372
•Zone: Zone 1
3. ENERGIES (Rank 3) :
•Frequency (Freq): 89
•Cumulative Frequency (cumFreq ): 461
•Zone: Zone 1
4. JOURNAL OF INTELLIGENT AND FUZZY SYSTEMS (Rank 4) :
•Frequency (Freq): 74
•Cumulative Frequency (cumFreq ): 535
•Zone: Zone 1
5. EXPERT SYSTEMS WITH APPLICATIONS (Rank 5) :
•Frequency (Freq): 68
•Cumulative Frequency (cumFreq ): 603
•Zone: Zone 1
6. SENSORS (Rank 6) :
•Frequency (Freq): 61
•Cumulative Frequency (cumFreq ): 664
•Zone: Zone 1
7. APPLIED SCIENCES (SWITZERLAND) (Rank 7) :
•Frequency (Freq): 57
•Cumulative Frequency (cumFreq ): 721
•Zone: Zone 1
8. COMPUTERS AND SECURITY (Rank 8) :
•Frequency (Freq): 53
•Cumulative Frequency (cumFreq ): 774
•Zone: Zone 1
9. JOURNAL OF LOSS PREVENTION IN THE PROCESS INDUSTRIES (Rank 9) :
•Frequency (Freq): 50
•Cumulative Frequency (cumFreq ): 824
•Zone: Zone 1
10. SOFT COMPUTING (Rank 10) :
•Frequency (Freq): 48
•Cumulative Frequency (cumFreq ): 872
•Zone: Zone 1
54

Aljanabi et al. , Wasit Journal of Computer and Mathematics Science, Vol. 2 No. 4 (2023) p. 47-67
These core sources, concentrated in Zone 1, are pivotal in shaping the discourse on decision-making and cybersecurity.
Researchers and practitioners can consider these sources as primary outlets for accessing foundational knowledge and
staying abreast of developments in the field. Table 6 and figure 4 show the summary of this section
Table 6. Core Sources Based on Bradford Law
SO Rank Freq cumFreq Zone
IEEE ACCESS 1 203 203 Zone 1
SUSTAINABILITY (SWITZERLAND) 2 169 372 Zone 1
ENERGIES 3 89 461 Zone 1
JOURNAL OF INTELLIGENT AND FUZZY SYSTEMS 4 74 535 Zone 1
EXPERT SYSTEMS WITH APPLICATIONS 5 68 603 Zone 1
SENSORS 6 61 664 Zone 1
APPLIED SCIENCES (SWITZERLAND) 7 57 721 Zone 1
COMPUTERS AND SECURITY 8 53 774 Zone 1
JOURNAL OF LOSS PREVENTION IN THE PROCESS INDUSTRIES 9 50 824 Zone 1
SOFT COMPUTING 10 48 872 Zone 1
FIGURE 4. Core Sources Based on Bradford Law
3.6 SOURCE LOCAL IMPACT BY H-INDEX
The h-index, g-index, and m-index are key bibliometric indicators that provide insights into the impact and productivity
of sources within a specific field. The following section explores the local impact of selected sources in the realm of
decision-making and cybersecurity:
1. IEEE ACCESS:
•h-Index: 30
•g-Index: 50
•m-Index: 5
•Total Citations (TC): 3368
•Number of Publications (NP): 203
•Publication Year Start (PY_start ): 2018
•Details: IEEE ACCESS demonstrates a robust local impact, with a high h-index of 30, indicating that 30 articles
have been cited at least 30 times each. The g-index and m-index further reinforce its influence in the field.
2. EXPERT SYSTEMS WITH APPLICATIONS:
•h-Index: 22
•g-Index: 33
•m-Index: 3.67
•Total Citations (TC): 1259
•Number of Publications (NP): 68
•Publication Year Start (PY_start ): 2018
55

Aljanabi et al. , Wasit Journal of Computer and Mathematics Science, Vol. 2 No. 4 (2023) p. 47-67
•Details: Expert Systems with Applications exhibits a solid local impact, with a respectable h-index of 22. The g-index
and m-index highlight its contribution to the field, balancing productivity and citation impact.
3. SUSTAINABILITY (SWITZERLAND) :
•h-Index: 19
•g-Index: 29
•m-Index: 3.17
•Total Citations (TC): 1301
•Number of Publications (NP): 169
•Publication Year Start (PY_start ): 2018
•Details: Sustainability (Switzerland) demonstrates a significant local impact, as reflected in its h-index of 19. The
g-index and m-index further emphasize its influence in the field of decision-making and cybersecurity.
4. JOURNAL OF LOSS PREVENTION IN THE PROCESS INDUSTRIES:
•h-Index: 18
•g-Index: 25
•m-Index: 3.0
•Total Citations (TC): 751
•Number of Publications (NP): 50
•Publication Year Start (PY_start ): 2018
•Details: The Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries holds a substantial local impact, with an h-index of
18. The g-index and m-index highlight its contribution to the field’s literature.
5. COMPUTERS AND INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING:
•h-Index: 17
•g-Index: 31
•m-Index: 2.83
•Total Citations (TC): 1005
•Number of Publications (NP): 46
•Publication Year Start (PY_start ): 2018
•Details: Computers and Industrial Engineering showcases a noteworthy local impact, with a solid h-index of 17. The
g-index and m-index further affirm its significance in the field.
6. ECOLOGICAL INDICATORS:
•h-Index: 17
•g-Index: 31
•m-Index: 2.83
•Total Citations (TC): 996
•Number of Publications (NP): 46
•Publication Year Start (PY_start ): 2018
•Details: Ecological Indicators exhibits a robust local impact, with an h-index of 17. The g-index and m-index
emphasize its contribution to the literature at the intersection of decision-making and ecological considerations.
7. ENERGIES:
•h-Index: 17
•g-Index: 25
•m-Index: 2.83
•Total Citations (TC): 874
•Number of Publications (NP): 89
•Publication Year Start (PY_start ): 2018
•Details: Energies demonstrates a substantial local impact, with an h-index of 17. The g-index and m-index underscore
its significance in the field of decision-making and cybersecurity within the context of energy systems.
8. ENERGY:
•h-Index: 17
•g-Index: 26
•m-Index: 2.83
•Total Citations (TC): 718
•Number of Publications (NP): 33
•Publication Year Start (PY_start ): 2018
•Details: Energy maintains a solid local impact, with an h-index of 17. The g-index and m-index highlight its
contribution to the broader discourse on decision-making in the energy sector.
56

Aljanabi et al. , Wasit Journal of Computer and Mathematics Science, Vol. 2 No. 4 (2023) p. 47-67
9. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF OPERATIONAL RESEARCH:
•h-Index: 17
•g-Index: 30
•m-Index: 2.83
•Total Citations (TC): 957
•Number of Publications (NP): 38
•Publication Year Start (PY_start ): 2018
•Details: The European Journal of Operational Research has made a significant impact in its local community, which
is evident from its h-index of 17. The g-index and m-index provide additional evidence of its reputation in the field of
decision-making and operational research.
10. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRODUCTION RESEARCH:
•h-Index: 15
•g-Index: 32
•m-Index: 2.5
•Total Citations (TC): 1312
•Number of Publications (NP): 32
•Publication Year Start (PY_start ): 2018
•Details: The International Journal of Production Research has a significant impact locally, as evidenced by its h-index
of 15. The g-index and m-index emphasize its importance in the field of decision-making in production and manufacturing.
The local impact metrics give us important information about how influential and impactful the selected sources are
in the decision-making and cybersecurity field. Researchers can use these metrics to assess how important and influential
each source is in the academic and practical aspects of the field. Table 7 and Figure 5 provide a summary of this section.
Table 7. Source Local Impact by h-Index
Element h_index g_index m_index TC NP PY_start
IEEE ACCESS 30 50 5 3368 203 2018
EXPERT SYSTEMS WITH APPLICATIONS 22 33 3.66666667 1259 68 2018
SUSTAINABILITY (SWITZERLAND) 19 29 3.16666667 1301 169 2018
JOURNAL OF LOSS PREVENTION IN THE PROCESS
INDUSTRIES
18 25 3 751 50 2018
COMPUTERS AND INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING 17 31 2.83333333 1005 46 2018
ECOLOGICAL INDICATORS 17 31 2.83333333 996 46 2018
ENERGIES 17 25 2.83333333 874 89 2018
ENERGY 17 26 2.83333333 718 33 2018
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF OPERATIONAL RESEARCH 17 30 2.83333333 957 38 2018
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRODUCTION
RESEARCH
15 32 2.5 1312 32 2018
FIGURE 5. Source Local Impact by h-Index
57

Aljanabi et al. , Wasit Journal of Computer and Mathematics Science, Vol. 2 No. 4 (2023) p. 47-67
3.7 COUNTRY SCIENTIFIC PRODUCTION
The distribution of scientific production across different regions provides insights into the global landscape of research
in the field of decision-making and cybersecurity. The following section outlines the scientific production of selected
countries:
1. China (Freq: 3121) :
•China leads the scientific production in the field with a substantial frequency of 3121 articles. This underscores
China’s significant contribution to the ongoing discourse on decision-making and cybersecurity.
2. USA (Freq: 1486) :
•The United States follows closely with a frequency of 1486 articles, reflecting the active engagement of American
researchers and institutions in advancing knowledge in this domain.
3. India (Freq: 701) :
•India contributes significantly to the scientific production, with a frequency of 701 articles. This emphasizes the
growing interest and involvement of Indian researchers in decision-making and cybersecurity research.
4. UK (Freq: 569) :
•The United Kingdom, with a frequency of 569 articles, stands as a notable contributor to the global scientific output
in this field. British researchers play a key role in shaping discussions on decision-making and cybersecurity.
5. Australia (Freq: 340) :
•Australia’s scientific production, with a frequency of 340 articles, highlights the country’s commitment to advancing
knowledge in decision-making and cybersecurity.
6. Saudi Arabia (Freq: 318) :
•Saudi Arabia demonstrates a strong presence in scientific production, with a frequency of 318 articles. This reflects
the country’s active engagement in research related to decision-making and cybersecurity.
7. Italy (Freq: 316) :
•Italy contributes significantly to the global scientific output in this field, with a frequency of 316 articles. Italian
researchers play a crucial role in advancing knowledge and innovation.
8. Iran (Freq: 311) :
•Iran’s scientific production, with a frequency of 311 articles, showcases the country’s involvement in decision-making
and cybersecurity research, contributing valuable perspectives to the global discourse.
9. Canada (Freq: 265) :
•Canada’s scientific production, with a frequency of 265 articles, reflects the country’s active participation in research
related to decision-making and cybersecurity.
10. Spain (Freq: 253) :
•Spain, with a frequency of 253 articles, is a significant contributor to the global scientific output in this field. Spanish
researchers contribute diverse perspectives to decision-making and cybersecurity discussions.
11. Germany (Freq: 237) :
•Germany’s scientific production, with a frequency of 237 articles, underscores the country’s commitment to advanc-
ing knowledge and innovation in decision-making and cybersecurity.
12. Brazil (Freq: 228) :
•Brazil, with a frequency of 228 articles, plays a noteworthy role in the global scientific landscape of decision-making
and cybersecurity.
13. Turkey (Freq: 218) :
•Turkey’s scientific production, with a frequency of 218 articles, reflects the country’s active engagement in decision-
making and cybersecurity research.
14. South Korea (Freq: 201) :
•South Korea’s contribution to scientific production, with a frequency of 201 articles, emphasizes the country’s
involvement in advancing knowledge in this field.
15. Pakistan (Freq: 185) :
•Pakistan, with a frequency of 185 articles, is a significant contributor to the global scientific discourse on decision-
making and cybersecurity.
16. Ukraine (Freq: 179) :
•Ukraine’s scientific production, with a frequency of 179 articles, showcases the country’s participation in research
related to decision-making and cybersecurity.
17. France (Freq: 177) :
•France, with a frequency of 177 articles, contributes to the global scientific output in decision-making and cyberse-
curity, adding valuable perspectives to the field.
58

Aljanabi et al. , Wasit Journal of Computer and Mathematics Science, Vol. 2 No. 4 (2023) p. 47-67
18. Malaysia (Freq: 141) :
•Malaysia, with a frequency of 141 articles, is actively involved in advancing knowledge in decision-making and
cybersecurity.
19. Netherlands (Freq: 136) :
•The Netherlands, with a frequency of 136 articles, plays a notable role in the global scientific landscape of decision-
making and cybersecurity.
20. Portugal (Freq: 120) :
•Portugal’s scientific production, with a frequency of 120 articles, reflects the country’s active participation in research
related to decision-making and cybersecurity.
This overview provides a glimpse into the global distribution of scientific production, showcasing the active engage-
ment of various countries in advancing knowledge and contributing to the ongoing dialogue on decision-making and
cybersecurity, table 7 and figure 6 show the summary of this section
Table 8. Country Scientific Production
region Freq
CHINA 3121
USA 1486
INDIA 701
UK 569
AUSTRALIA 340
SAUDI ARABIA 318
ITALY 316
IRAN 311
CANADA 265
SPAIN 253
GERMANY 237
BRAZIL 228
TURKEY 218
SOUTH KOREA 201
PAKISTAN 185
UKRAINE 179
FRANCE 177
MALAYSIA 141
NETHERLANDS 136
PORTUGAL 120
FIGURE 6. Country Scientific Production
59

Aljanabi et al. , Wasit Journal of Computer and Mathematics Science, Vol. 2 No. 4 (2023) p. 47-67
3.8 WORD CLOUD:
1. Decision Making (Frequency: 3063) :
•The term "decision making" stands out as the most frequently occurring, indicating its central role in the literature. It
encompasses a wide range of discussions on the decision-making process in the context of cybersecurity.
2. Risk Assessment (Frequency: 2343) :
•"Risk assessment" emerges prominently, reflecting the significant attention given to evaluating and managing risks
within the cybersecurity landscape.
3. Network Security (Frequency: 687) :
•"Network security" is a critical aspect of the word cloud, underscoring the focus on securing digital networks in the
decision-making processes related to cybersecurity.
4. Decision Support Systems (Frequency: 522) :
•The term "decision support systems" highlights the integration of technological tools and systems to aid decision-
making in the field of cybersecurity.
5. Human (Frequency: 436) :
•The presence of "human" suggests a focus on the human element in decision-making processes, emphasizing the
importance of understanding human behavior and cognition in cybersecurity contexts.
6. Risk Management (Frequency: 379) :
•"Risk management" is a recurrent theme, indicating a strong emphasis on strategies and frameworks for effectively
managing risks in cybersecurity decision-making.
7. Risk Analysis (Frequency: 348) :
•The term "risk analysis" signifies a detailed examination of potential risks, contributing to informed decision-making
in the cybersecurity domain.
8. Machine Learning (Frequency: 347) :
•"Machine learning" is a significant term, reflecting the increasing integration of artificial intelligence techniques in
decision-making processes for cybersecurity.
9. Decisions Makings (Frequency: 326) :
•The term "decisions makings" highlights variations in the expression of the decision-making concept, underlining
the diversity in the literature.
10. Artificial Intelligence (Frequency: 315) :
•"Artificial intelligence" is a key focus, indicating the growing role of AI in enhancing decision-making capabilities
within the cybersecurity landscape.
11. Humans (Frequency: 303) :
•The term "humans" further emphasizes the human-centric aspect of decision-making, considering the impact of
human factors on cybersecurity decisions.
12. Internet of Things (Frequency: 285) :
•"Internet of Things" (IoT) signifies the interconnectedness of devices and its relevance in decision-making processes
related to cybersecurity in the era of IoT.
13. Behavioral Research (Frequency: 276) :
•The term "behavioral research" suggests an interest in understanding and incorporating behavioral aspects into the
decision-making frameworks within cybersecurity.
14. Risk Perception (Frequency: 239) :
•"Risk perception" highlights the importance of how individuals perceive and interpret risks, influencing decision-
making strategies in cybersecurity.
15. Decision Theory (Frequency: 236) :
•"Decision theory" indicates a theoretical approach to understanding decision-making processes, providing a founda-
tion for discussions in the field.
The word cloud visually encapsulates the richness and diversity of topics within decision-making and cybersecurity
literature, showcasing the prominence of certain terms and themes in the academic discourse, table 9 and figure 7 show
the summary of this section.
3.9 TOPIC TREND ANALYSIS
The provided table offers insights into the trends and evolution of specific topics in the field, as reflected by their
frequencies over different years. the trajectory of each topic in detail are:
1. Problem Solving (Freq: 18) :
•Year Q1 (2018): 18 articles
60

Aljanabi et al. , Wasit Journal of Computer and Mathematics Science, Vol. 2 No. 4 (2023) p. 47-67
Table 9. Word Cloud
Terms Frequency
decision making 3063
risk assessment 2343
network security 687
decision support systems 522
human 436
risk management 379
risk analysis 348
machine learning 347
decisions makings 326
artificial intelligence 315
humans 303
internet of things 285
behavioral research 276
risk perception 239
decision theory 236
FIGURE 7. Word Cloud
•Year Median (2018): 18 articles
•Year Q3 (2019): 18 articles
•Discussion: The topic of problem-solving had a consistent presence in 2018 and maintained a steady frequency until
2019. While there was no increase in frequency, its sustained appearance suggests continued interest in the application of
problem-solving methodologies.
2. Organization and Management (Freq: 14) :
•Year Q1 (2018): 14 articles
•Year Median (2018): 14 articles
•Year Q3 (2020): 14 articles
•Discussion: Similar to problem-solving, the frequency of articles related to organization and management remained
stable in 2018. Interestingly, it continued to be a focus through 2020, indicating a prolonged interest in organizational and
managerial aspects within the field.
3. Non-Insulin Dependent Diabetes Mellitus (Freq: 10) :
•Year Q1 (2018): 10 articles
•Year Median (2018): 10 articles
•Year Q3 (2020): 10 articles
•Discussion: The frequency for non-insulin dependent diabetes mellitus remained constant across 2018 and sustained
until 2020. While the number of articles is relatively small, the consistency suggests a continued interest in this specific
health-related topic within the field.
4. Priority Journal (Freq: 80) :
•Year Q1 (2018): 80 articles
•Year Median (2019): 80 articles
•Year Q3 (2020): 80 articles
•Discussion: The term "priority journal" appears consistently across 2018 and 2019. The sustained frequency suggests
that discussions around priority journals were prevalent, perhaps indicating a focus on selecting and prioritizing journals
for publication.
5. Procedures (Freq: 75) :
61

Aljanabi et al. , Wasit Journal of Computer and Mathematics Science, Vol. 2 No. 4 (2023) p. 47-67
•Year Q1 (2018): 75 articles
•Year Median (2019): 75 articles
•Year Q3 (2021): 75 articles
•Discussion: The term "procedures" shows a consistent frequency from 2018 to 2019 and maintains its level through
2021. This suggests a continued emphasis on detailing and discussing procedures within the field.
6. Models (Freq: 41) :
•Year Q1 (2019): 41 articles
•Year Median (2019): 41 articles
•Year Q3 (2020): 41 articles
•Discussion: The term "models" sees a surge in frequency in 2019, suggesting an increased focus on modeling within
the field. The sustained frequency through 2020 indicates continued interest in this topic.
7. Male (Freq: 210) :
•Year Q1 (2019): 210 articles
•Year Median (2020): 210 articles
•Year Q3 (2022): 210 articles
•Discussion: The term "male" sees a consistent frequency, indicating a continued focus on gender-related aspects
within the field. The sustained interest may suggest ongoing discussions on the role of gender in decision-making and
cybersecurity.
8. Security of Data (Freq: 118) :
•Year Q1 (2019): 118 articles
•Year Median (2020): 118 articles
•Year Q3 (2021): 118 articles
•Discussion: The term "security of data" maintains a consistent frequency, highlighting the enduring importance of
data security within the field. The sustained interest suggests a continuous exploration of strategies and technologies for
securing data.
9. Cloud Computing (Freq: 114) :
•Year Q1 (2019): 114 articles
•Year Median (2020): 114 articles
•Year Q3 (2022): 114 articles
•Discussion: "Cloud computing" experiences a consistent frequency, indicating an ongoing exploration of its impact
on decision-making and cybersecurity. The sustained interest suggests a continuous evolution in understanding and
adopting cloud technologies, table 9 and figure 8 show the summary of this section
Table 10. Topic Trend Analysis
item freq year_q1 year_med year_q3
problem solving 18 2018 2018 2019
organization and management 14 2018 2018 2020
non insulin dependent diabetes mellitus 10 2018 2018 2020
priority journal 80 2018 2019 2020
procedures 75 2018 2019 2021
models 41 2019 2019 2020
male 210 2019 2020 2022
security of data 118 2019 2020 2021
cloud computing 114 2019 2020 2022
decision making 3063 2020 2021 2022
risk assessment 2342 2019 2021 2022
network security 687 2020 2021 2022
machine learning 347 2021 2022 2023
decisions makings 326 2022 2022 2023
artificial intelligence 315 2020 2022 2023
machine-learning 118 2022 2023 2023
risks management 91 2022 2023 2023
reinforcement learnings 38 2022 2023 2023
62

Aljanabi et al. , Wasit Journal of Computer and Mathematics Science, Vol. 2 No. 4 (2023) p. 47-67
FIGURE 8. Topic Trend Analysis
3.10 CO-OCCURRENCE NETWORK ANALYSIS
The exported data provides insights into the co-occurrence network of terms in the field of decision-making and
cybersecurity. Each node represents a specific term, and the table includes information about the cluster, betweenness
centrality, closeness centrality, and PageRank for each term. Let’s delve into the key findings and discuss the implications
of the co-occurrence network:
1. Cluster and Grouping:
•All the terms belong to Cluster 1, indicating a high degree of interconnectedness among these terms. This suggests a
cohesive thematic group within the field of decision-making and cybersecurity where these terms are frequently discussed
together.
2. Betweenness Centrality:
•Decision Making and Risk Assessment: "Decision making" and "risk assessment" exhibit high betweenness cen-
trality, indicating their critical role as bridges connecting different terms in the network. They likely serve as central
concepts that link various aspects of decision-making and cybersecurity.
•Network Security and Decision Support Systems: "Network security" and "decision support systems" also have
notable betweenness centrality, suggesting their significant influence in connecting different topics within the field.
3. Closeness Centrality:
•Decision Making and Risk Assessment: Similar to betweenness centrality, "decision making" and "risk assessment"
have high closeness centrality, emphasizing their proximity to other terms in the network. This suggests that these terms
are closely related to a wide range of other concepts in the field.
•Internet of Things and Deep Learning: "Internet of things" and "deep learning" also show relatively high closeness
centrality, indicating their close connection to other terms in the network.
4. PageRank:
•Decision Making and Risk Assessment: Once again, "decision making" and "risk assessment" demonstrate high
PageRank, highlighting their importance and influence in the network. These terms are likely central in shaping discus-
sions and research within the field.
•Artificial Intelligence and Learning Systems: "Artificial intelligence" and "learning systems" have notable PageR-
ank values, indicating their significant contribution to the overall structure and prominence in the co-occurrence network.
5. Key Observations:
•Diversity of Topics: The co-occurrence network includes a diverse range of topics, from foundational concepts like
"decision making" and "risk assessment" to emerging technologies like "artificial intelligence" and "deep learning."
•Interconnected Themes: The high betweenness and closeness centrality of certain terms suggest that these concepts
play pivotal roles in connecting and influencing various aspects of decision-making and cybersecurity.
•Influence of Emerging Technologies: Terms such as "artificial intelligence," "machine learning," and "deep learn-
ing" have notable centrality measures, indicating the growing influence of these technologies in the field.
6. Implications:
•Researchers and practitioners in decision-making and cybersecurity should pay particular attention to the central
terms like "decision making" and "risk assessment," as they form critical links between different themes in the field.
63

Aljanabi et al. , Wasit Journal of Computer and Mathematics Science, Vol. 2 No. 4 (2023) p. 47-67
•The network analysis highlights the interconnected nature of topics, emphasizing the need for a holistic understanding
of various concepts to navigate the complex landscape of decision-making in cybersecurity.
•Emerging technologies like "artificial intelligence" and "machine learning" are prominent within the network, sug-
gesting their increasing relevance and impact on decision-making processes in cybersecurity.
The co-occurrence network analysis provides a visual representation of the interconnectedness of key terms in the field,
offering valuable insights into the thematic structure and influential concepts within decision-making and cybersecurity
research, figure 9 show the summary of this section.
FIGURE 9. Co-occurrence Network Analysis
3.11 COLLABORATION WORLD MAP ANALYSIS
The collaboration world map, represented by the frequency of collaborations between different countries, provides
insights into the global nature of research partnerships in the field of decision-making and cybersecurity. The table reveals
the most frequent collaborations between countries. Let’s delve into the findings and discuss the implications:
1. Major Collaborations:
•China-USA Collaboration (Frequency: 122):
•The collaboration between China and the USA emerges as the most frequent, indicating a robust partnership in
decision-making and cybersecurity research. This collaboration suggests a pooling of expertise and resources between
two major players in the field.
•China-United Kingdom (Frequency: 63) and USA-United Kingdom (Frequency: 48):
•Collaborations between China and the United Kingdom, as well as between the USA and the United Kingdom, are
notable. These partnerships likely contribute to the exchange of knowledge and perspectives between these countries.
•India-Saudi Arabia (Frequency: 46):
•The collaboration between India and Saudi Arabia suggests a connection between countries with distinct cultural and
economic backgrounds, reflecting the global nature of cybersecurity research collaborations.
2. Regional Partnerships:
•China’s Collaborations:
•China’s collaborations extend beyond its borders, involving countries such as Hong Kong, Canada, Australia, India,
Singapore, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia. This comprehensive network highlights China’s active engagement in international
research collaborations.
•USA’s Collaborations:
•The USA’s collaborations extend to Canada, Australia, Germany, and Spain, showcasing a diverse set of international
partners. This reflects the USA’s role as a key player in global cybersecurity research efforts.
•United Kingdom’s Collaborations:
•The United Kingdom collaborates extensively with Italy, Australia, Germany, Spain, and the Netherlands. These part-
nerships indicate a wide-reaching influence and involvement of the United Kingdom in international research endeavors.
3. Intercontinental Collaborations:
•Saudi Arabia’s Collaborations:
64

Aljanabi et al. , Wasit Journal of Computer and Mathematics Science, Vol. 2 No. 4 (2023) p. 47-67
•Saudi Arabia’s collaborations with India, Pakistan, and Egypt demonstrate an intercontinental reach, fostering part-
nerships across Asia and Africa in the realm of decision-making and cybersecurity research.
•Global Network:
•The collaborative efforts involve countries from different continents, showcasing the truly global nature of research
in decision-making and cybersecurity. These partnerships contribute to a diverse exchange of perspectives and method-
ologies.
4. Implications:
•Knowledge Exchange and Diversity:
•The frequent collaborations suggest a rich exchange of knowledge and expertise, contributing to a comprehensive
understanding of decision-making and cybersecurity from diverse perspectives.
•Emerging Research Hubs:
•Certain collaborations, such as China’s partnerships with Hong Kong and Singapore, indicate the emergence of
regional research hubs in Asia. These hubs likely play a pivotal role in advancing research in the field.
•Global Impact:
•Collaborations between major players like China, the USA, and the United Kingdom highlight the global impact of
their joint efforts, potentially influencing international policies and strategies in cybersecurity.
•Opportunities for Future Collaborations:
•The identified collaborations provide insights for researchers and institutions seeking potential partners for future
collaborations. Establishing partnerships with countries that have active research networks can enhance the global impact
of research endeavors.
The collaboration world map reveals a dynamic landscape of international partnerships in decision-making and cy-
bersecurity research, emphasizing the interconnected and global nature of the field. These collaborations contribute to a
collective effort in addressing the complex challenges and advancing knowledge in this critical domain, table 11 and figure
10 show the summary of this section.
Table 11. Collaboration World Map Analysis
From To Frequency
CHINA USA 122
CHINA UNITED KINGDOM 63
USA UNITED KINGDOM 48
INDIA SAUDI ARABIA 46
CHINA HONG KONG 42
CHINA CANADA 38
CHINA AUSTRALIA 37
CHINA INDIA 36
USA CANADA 35
CHINA SINGAPORE 34
SAUDI ARABIA PAKISTAN 34
USA AUSTRALIA 31
CHINA PAKISTAN 30
CHINA SAUDI ARABIA 29
USA GERMANY 28
USA INDIA 26
UNITED KINGDOM ITALY 23
USA ITALY 23
SAUDI ARABIA EGYPT 22
CHINA IRAN 21
UNITED KINGDOM AUSTRALIA 21
UNITED KINGDOM SPAIN 21
UNITED KINGDOM NETHERLANDS 20
USA SAUDI ARABIA 20
CHINA SWEDEN 18
UNITED KINGDOM GERMANY 18
USA SPAIN 18
INDIA UNITED KINGDOM 17
ITALY FRANCE 17
ITALY SPAIN 17
65

Aljanabi et al. , Wasit Journal of Computer and Mathematics Science, Vol. 2 No. 4 (2023) p. 47-67
FIGURE 10. - Collaboration World Map Analysis
4. DISCUSSION
This bibliometric analysis offers the most comprehensive investigation into global research activities regarding decision-
making in the context of cybersecurity. By examining 4,637 documents from Scopus spanning 2018-2024, we delineated
key patterns related to scientific production, authorship collaborations, regional contributions, prominent journals, under-
lying conceptual structure, and topical trajectories that define current literature. Several interesting observations emerge -
steady growth peaking in 2023 signals rising stakeholder interest, Chinese and American institutions dominate research
outputs reflecting geopolitical strongholds, prolific national and international partnerships highlight interconnected pri-
orities, core journals such as IEEE Access and Expert Systems cement cross-disciplinary discourse, and critical themes
like risk assessment and network security underpin the field alongside emerging technologies like machine learning.
Some limitations provide avenues for future work - assessing document quality, comparing datasets from other databases,
investigating policies and events influencing research, and conducting surveys to understand barriers around decision-
making. Additionally, updated studies to track advances as the literature evolves would be beneficial.
our analysis provides a valuable evidence-base for researchers to identify influential work, key contributors, major
knowledge hubs, critical technology trends, and potential collaborators to advance sophisticated decision-making frame-
works and systems tackling pressing cybersecurity challenges worldwide.
5. CONCLUSION
This bibliometric study offers a comprehensive global overview and science mapping analysis of research efforts
surrounding decision-making in cybersecurity published over 2018-2024. Findings reveal accelerating outputs and robust
international collaborations dominated by China and the USA, highlighting the field’s growing prominence. Moreover,
critical issues around risk assessment, network security, decision support systems, and emerging AI/ML technologies
underpin the literature. The results can help stakeholders discern major research directions, recognize leading contrib-
utors, facilitate targeted partnerships, exploit real-world developments shaping the discourse, and inform policies and
practices linking decision science and cybersecurity. As rapid technological advances persist, updated reviews tracing the
knowledge landscapes evolution remain vital.
6. FUNDING
None
7. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
None
8. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
The author declares no conflict of interest.
66

Aljanabi et al. , Wasit Journal of Computer and Mathematics Science, Vol. 2 No. 4 (2023) p. 47-67
REFERENCES
[1] M. Golovianko, S. Gryshko, V. Terziyan, and T. Tuunanen, “Responsible cognitive digital clones as decision-makers:a design science research
study,” European Journal of Information Systems, vol. 32, no. 5, pp. 879–901, 2023.
[2] G. Rathee, S. Garg, G. Kaddoum, D. N. K. Jayakody, J. Piran, and G. Muhammad, “A Trusted Social Network Using Hypothetical Mathematical
Model and Decision-Based Scheme,” IEEE Access, vol. 9, pp. 4223–4232, 2021.
[3] R. Diesch, M. Pfaff, and H. Krcmar, “A comprehensive model of information security factors for decision-makers,” Comput Secur, vol. 92, 2020.
[4] T. Kravchenko, T. Shevgunov, . . Development, Expert, and S. System J Theor Appl Inf Technol, vol. 100, no. 18, pp. 5418–5437, 2022.
[5] L. Previti, “The cyber risk management in the algorithmic administrative decisions; [La gestione del rischio informatico nella decisione
amministrativa robotica,” Rivista Italiana di Informatica e Diritto, vol. 2022, pp. 67–74, 2022.
[6] M. Farina, “Intellectual property rights in the era of Italian ‘artificial’ public decisions: time to collapse?; [La proprietà intellettuale nell’era delle
decisioni amministrative ‘artificiali’: rischi di collisione?,” Rivista Italiana di Informatica e Diritto, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 127–142, 2023.
[7] E. Weishäupl, E. Yasasin, and G. Schryen, “Information security investments: An exploratory multiple case study on decision-making, evaluation
and learning,” Comput Secur, vol. 77, pp. 807–823, 2018.
[8] I. Dikmen, G. Atasoy, H. Erol, H. D. Kaya, and M. T. Birgonul, “A decision-support tool for risk and complexity assessment and visualization in
construction projects,” Comput Ind, vol. 141, pp. 2022–2022.
[9] S. Zeijlemaker, E. A. J. A. Rouwette, G. Cunico, S. Armenia, and M. V. Kutzschenbach, “Decision-Makers’ Understanding of Cyber-Security’s
Systemic and Dynamic Complexity: Insights from a Board Game for Bank Managers,” Systems, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 2022–2022.
[10] S. A. Bening, M. Dachyar, N. R. Pratama, J. Park, and Y. Chang, “E-Commerce Technologies Adoption Strategy Selection in Indonesian SMEs
Using the Decision-Makers, Technological, Organizational and Environmental (DTOE) Framework,” Sustainability (Switzerland), vol. 15, no. 12,
pp. 2023–2023.
[11] C. Maciel, L. Roque, and A. C. B. Garcia, “Maturity in decision-making: A method to measure e-participation systems in virtual communities,”
International Journal of Web Based Communities, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 395–416, 2018.
[12] L. Cheng and A. Chouldechova, “Heterogeneity in Algorithm-Assisted Decision-Making: A Case Study in Child Abuse Hotline Screening,” Proc
ACM Hum Comput Interact, vol. 6, pp. 2022–2022.
[13] X. Qian, W. Yang, J. Pei, X. Liu, and P. M. Pardalos, “A game of information security investment considering security insurance and
complementary information assets,” International Transactions in Operational Research, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 1791–1824, 2022.
[14] S. Schinagl and A. Shahim, “What do we know about information security governance?: ‘From the basement to the boardroom’: towards digital
security governance,” Information and Computer Security, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 261–292, 2020.
[15] L. James, “Making cyber-security a strategic business priority,” Network Security, vol. 2018, no. 5, pp. 30042–30046, 2018.
[16] S. Janssen, A. V. Den, A. Berg, and Sharpanskykh, “Agent-based vulnerability assessment at airport security checkpoints: A case study on security
operator behavior,” Transp Res Interdiscip Perspect, vol. 5, 2020.
67