arbiter
JournalsPricingAccount

THE ILLUSION OF TECHNOLOGICAL FRAUD DETECTION: WHY AUDITOR COMPETENCE STILL RULES?

Universitas Negeri Surabaya et al.

Jurnal Akuntansi Multiparadigma2025https://doi.org/10.21776/ub.jamal.2025.16.2.20article
ABDC C
Weight
0.50

What the paper says

No abstract available.

Open paper page →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.21776/ub.jamal.2025.16.2.20

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{universitas2025,
  title        = {{THE ILLUSION OF TECHNOLOGICAL FRAUD DETECTION: WHY AUDITOR COMPETENCE STILL RULES?}},
  author       = {Universitas Negeri Surabaya et al.},
  journal      = {Jurnal Akuntansi Multiparadigma},
  year         = {2025},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.21776/ub.jamal.2025.16.2.20},
}

Paste directly into BibTeX, Zotero, or your reference manager.

Flag this paper

THE ILLUSION OF TECHNOLOGICAL FRAUD DETECTION: WHY AUDITOR COMPETENCE STILL RULES?

Flags are reviewed by the Arbiter methodology team within 5 business days.

Evidence weight

0.50

Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40

F · citation impact0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20
M · momentum0.50 × 0.15 = 0.07
V · venue signal0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03
R · text relevance †0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20

† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.