Skip to main content

Table 4 Risk of bias assessment. Assessment of sources of risk of bias within publications

From: Detection and prediction of insider threats to cyber security: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis

Criteria

Ambre et al. (2015) [ref] [15]

Mayhew et al. 2015 [ref] [29]

Ahmed et al. 2014 [14]

Zhang et al. 2014 [18]

Axelrad et al. 2013 [25]

Eldardiry et al. 2013 [22]

Parveen et al. 2013 [12]

Brdiczka et al. 2012 [24]

Chen et al. 2012 [13]

Raissi-Dehkordi et al. 2011 [21]

Eberie et al. 2009 [27]

Tang et al. 2009 [26]

Yu et al. 2006 [23]

Explain and justify the design and choice of components used in the proposed algorithma

2

3

2

3

1

3

3

3

2

3

3

4

4

A clear description of the exact features used to train the proposed algorithm is givena

3

1

1

4

1

3

4

3

4

4

4

2

4

Feature selection method is cleara

4

3

5

3

4

3

3

1

4

4

4

2

4

Model parameter optimization method is cearly describeda

3

3

5

1

3

2

3

1

4

4

5

2

4

A pseudocode of the proposed algorithm is presenteda

1

1

1

3

1

3

4

3

4

4

4

4

4

The proposed algorithm is compared with the benchmark algorithmsb

0

0

0

0

0

0

5

0

5

5

0

5

5

The benchmark algorithms are chosen carefullya

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

0

2

3

0

3

4

Detailed evaluation results are provideda

1

5

4

1

2

3

4

3

4

3

5

1

5

The key characteristcs of the experimental dataset are clearly describeda

2

1

1

3

1

2

3

3

3

3

4

1

5

The experimental data are made available to other researchersb

0

0

0

0

0

0

5

0

0

0

5

0

0

Sum

16

17

19

18

13

19

36

17

32

33

34

24

39

  1. aRating scale: Very good=5, Good= 4, Average=3, Poor=2, Very poor=1, Absolutely no information =0
  2. bRating scale: Yes=5, No=0
  3. Total score less than 25= High risk of bias