The DOI matches its Crossref record.
What Is Cyberterrorism? Findings From a Survey of Researchers
Abstract
This article reports on a recent survey designed to capture understandings of cyberterrorism across the global research community. Specifically, it explores competing views, and the importance thereof, amongst 118 respondents on three definitional issues: (a) the need for a specific definition of cyberterrorism for either policymakers or researchers; (b) the core characteristics or constituent parts of this concept; and (c) the value of applying the term “cyberterrorism” to a range of actual or potential scenarios. The article concludes by arguing that while a majority of researchers believe a specific definition of cyberterrorism is necessary for academics and policymakers, disagreement around what this might look like has additional potential to stimulate a rethinking of terrorism more widely.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“While previous research has mapped the attitudes of the media (Zeri and Noordin 2017) and the positions of cybersecurity experts (Jarvis and Macdonald 2015), the views of the public remain understudied.”
From Public Opinion and Cyberterrorism (2023) · cites this paper as Jarvis and Macdonald 2015
In the citing paper
“Given the absence of conceptual uniformity among domain experts (Jarvis and Macdonald 2015), we conclude by arguing that the public perspective on cyberterrorism may constrain policy elites due to the robust public consensus that has formed.”
From Public Opinion and Cyberterrorism (2023) · cites this paper as Jarvis and Macdonald 2015
Citations
Cited by
Public Opinion and Cyberterrorism
Shandler, R., Kostyuk, N., & Oppenheimer, H. (2023) · Public Opinion Quarterly · doi:10.1093/poq/nfad006 · Cited by 14
Metadata
- Authors
- Jarvis, L., & Macdonald, S.
- Affiliations
- University of East Anglia (GB)
- Swansea University (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Jarvis, Lee
- Venue
- Terrorism and Political Violence
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2014-05-08
- Volume
- 27
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 657-678
- ISSN
- 0954-6553 (ISSN-L)
- 1556-1836
- OpenAlex
- W2082291215
- Cited by
- 36
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 3
- FWCI
- 28.23
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Terrorism and Political Violence (publishedVersion)
- UEA Digital Repository (University of East Anglia) (acceptedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Cybersecurity and Cyber Warfare Studies
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Terrorism, Counterterrorism, and Political Violence
- Social Sciences › Law › Cybercrime and Law Enforcement Studies
- Keywords
- cyberterrorism, conceptual analysis, terrorism, researcher perspectives, policy implications, conceptual disagreement
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
