Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42256704›Full record

SynthesisF1000Research2026

A Systematic Literature Review on Biometric Authentication in Mobile Banking.

Hasan Naji Ali, Sufyan Salim Mahmood Al-Dabbagh

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in F1000Research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Hasan Naji AliComputer Science, University of Mosul College of Computer Sciences and Mathematics, Mosul, Nineveh Governorate, Iraq.ORCID 0009-0007-6880-0038
Sufyan Salim Mahmood Al-DabbaghCybersecurity, University of Mosul College of Computer Sciences and Mathematics, Mosul, Nineveh Governorate, Iraq.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

As mobile banking continues to grow at an exponential rate, the financial industry is faced with a critical challenge: How to keep user credentials secure without compromising on efficiency. Password-based authentication is still dominant but has major limitations which compromise both security and user experience. These systems are susceptible to the most common attack vectors such as phishing, malware and man-in-the-middle attacks, especially if users are using weak passwords or sharing passwords. Additionally, mobile devices have limited input interfaces that are frequently sources of frustration and error. As a result, there is increasing interest in other more secure and convenient alternatives such as biometric and multi-factor authentication (MFA) to mitigate the inherent weaknesses of password-based systems. This systematic literature review, which covers studies from 2020 to 2025, provides a critical review of biometric authentication methods used in mobile banking. It analyses existing approaches, security risks and implementation practices adopted by major banks across the world. While biometric systems are more secure and user friendly than traditional systems, they also introduce new challenges in terms of privacy, spoofing and regulatory compliance. The review gives a detailed overview of the current advances, key issues, and emerging research directions, which will give valuable insight to the development of secure and easy-to-use authentication systems in mobile banking.

Indexed as

Banking, PersonalBiometric IdentificationCell PhoneComputer SecurityHumansbiometric authenticationcybersecurity threatsmobile bankingmulti-factor authenticationusability and privacyuser authentication

Identifiers

PMID42256704
PMCPMC13237553

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.