Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41211053›Full record

SynthesisFrontiers in artificial intelligence2025

AI in phishing detection: a bibliometric review.

Daniela Popescul, Laura Diana Radu

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Frontiers in artificial intelligence, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Daniela PopesculDepartment of Accounting, Business Information Systems and Statistics, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, "Alexandru Ioan Cuza" University, Iași, Romania.
Laura Diana RaduDepartment of Accounting, Business Information Systems and Statistics, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, "Alexandru Ioan Cuza" University, Iași, Romania.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Phishing represents a category of cyber-attacks based on social engineering, with a significant impact on individuals and organizations, and a high capacity for reinvention by adapting its modus operandi according to technological advancements. With a relatively simple scenario and without using sophisticated technologies, phishing attacks exploit user vulnerabilities, convincing them to disclose sensitive personal or organizational data. Within anti-phishing solutions, the detection of spoofed URLs, counterfeit websites, and email or other types of messages that lure the user into entering their data in a form, plays an important role. Against this backdrop, artificial intelligence (AI) technologies, particularly Machine Learning (ML), have been successfully employed in phishing detection, with a rich body of literature in this field. Objective: A review of the existing literature on phishing detection using AI was conducted. This study aims to fill this gap by providing comprehensive bibliometric analysis, complementing existing surveys in the field, focusing on the role of AI in phishing detection. Methods: A total of 1096 documents focusing on AI, ML, Deep Learning (DL), or Natural Language Processing (NLP) in phishing detection were extracted from the Web of Science (WoS) scientific database. The information from these documents was subsequently loaded into the Biblioshiny (Bibliometrix package) and VOSviewer software. Results: The dataset allowed for the identification of publication trends, influential documents and publications, patterns of author collaboration, and key topics of interest within the main author clusters. A thematic analysis of the field highlighted driving themes, niche themes, emerging and declining themes, and basic themes. Furthermore, thematic evolution over time was examined based on authors' keywords. A thorough review of the most relevant articles identified through bibliometric analysis was conducted to discuss the primary methods of phishing detection using AI. Conclusion: The research field of AI in phishing detection has evolved significantly starting with 2016, with a focus on using ML algorithms to identify phishing websites by extracting discriminative features, and experienced a consistent growth in 2024. Recent work emphasizes a shift from classical ML to DL, the importance of feature selection and engineering, and the use of hybrid models and classifier stacking.

Indexed as

artificial intelligencebibliometric reviewdeep learningmachine learningphishingsocial engineering

Identifiers

PMID41211053
PMCPMC12589022

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.