Skip to main content

Analyzing Modern Scam Typologies: From Pig-Butchering and Nigerian Advance-Fee Fraud to Crypto Airdrop Schemes

Katalin Parti ; Sinyong Choi ; Thomas Dearden (2026) — International Journal of Cybersecurity Intelligence & Cybercrime

Citation activity

Total citations · Google Scholar
Unavailable
Average per calendar year
Citation count unavailable

Counts reflect Google Scholar’s coverage and do not measure research quality. Source, calculation and limitations

What do these research terms mean?
Preprint
A manuscript shared before formal peer review and publication. Check whether a later published version is available.
Dataset
A collection of data or examples for others to inspect or reuse. It can appear in Library search and topic mapping, but RSRC does not use dataset records as evidence in Research Insights.
Dissertation or thesis
Research submitted for an academic degree. This describes its format, not its reliability.
Journal article
An article published in a journal. This label alone does not establish peer review, study quality, or how well the findings apply elsewhere.
Qualitative research
Examines experiences, meanings, or processes, often through interviews or observations. It can explain how something happens without estimating how common it is.
Quantitative research
Uses numerical measurements to describe patterns or test relationships. A relationship between two measurements does not by itself show that one causes the other.
Systematic review
Uses a planned, documented method to find and assess research addressing a question. Its conclusions still depend on the included studies and what the search covered.
Meta-analysis
Statistically combines results from multiple studies. Combining studies does not remove weaknesses in their design or make unlike populations interchangeable.
Not classified
This record has no recognized label in this filter. It does not mean the publication used no method, or that no research exists.

Definitions draw on DataCite resource types; Cochrane review methods; NLM: association and causation. RSRC’s dataset and classification rules are explained in our methodology.

Citation tools


              
              

Transparency

Evidence and review status

This page contains AI-generated content. No human content review or subject-matter-expert review is recorded.

Source basis
Downloaded PDF
Source updates
No notice found at last check
AI-generated page content
Yes
Automated checks
Passed
Administrative approval
Yes
Human content review
Not recorded
Subject-matter-expert review
Not recorded
How this was prepared
Source basis

RSRC downloaded and privately stored a copy of the paper for internal analysis. The PDF is not offered to viewers from this page.

  • PDF added to RSRC:
Source updates

No incoming update notice was found in the dated Crossref response. Coverage is incomplete, particularly for corrections and expressions of concern; this is not a guarantee that the source is valid or unchanged.

  • Last source-status attempt:
AI-generated page content

AI-generated research notes displayed on this page: Synopsis, Identified gaps, Methods, Limitations, Future work. The paper itself is not described as AI-generated.

  • Document analysis recorded:
  • Synopsis generation recorded:
  • Page record updated:
Automated checks

The current, source-bound synopsis passed the recorded versioned publication checks.

  • Checks completed:
View passed checks (3)
  • Length, completeness, repetition, refusal, boilerplate, and active-markup screening
  • Numerical claims checked against the available source text
  • English-source lexical grounding check
Administrative approval

An authenticated administrator approved the bibliographic record for public Library display. This is not a review of every research claim.

  • Approved for public display:
Human content review

No human review is recorded for the AI-generated content displayed on this page.

Subject-matter-expert review

RSRC has not recorded review of this content by a subject-matter or methods expert.

Review-state definitions
Found a possible error? Request a correction.

Synopsis

This publication provides a neutral synthesis of four research papers in the 2026 issue of the International Journal of Cybersecurity Intelligence and Cybercrime, focusing on contemporary cyber scam typologies and defense considerations. The authors frame modern cybercrime as shaped by decentralized technologies, organizational routines, and automated threat intelligence, and they advocate for interdisciplinary approaches that integrate technical forensics, qualitative analysis, and machine-learning aided triage. The first study examines a sanctions-linked pig-butchering network using on-chain tracing to reveal a three-tier transaction architecture with hub, intermediary, and holding layers. It emphasizes that the hub initiates centralized intake and that downstream funds flow primarily through internal transfers, suggesting forensic indicators for tracing illicit funds. The second study analyzes how the label “Nigerian scam” persists in discourse, employing qualitative analysis across academic, media, institutional, and enforcement texts to argue that attribution is shaped by representational repetition and institutional utility rather than strict authorship, with AI tools further destabilizing traditional cues. The third study analyzes 112 validated crypto airdrop scam cases to model how transaction-level mechanisms and user authorization influence losses, finding that authorization moments and routing via decentralized exchanges strongly affect monetary harm. The fourth study evaluates an automated threat intelligence pipeline that maps host intrusion system alerts to MITRE ATT&CK techniques, showing that domain adaptation and a metadata-aware re-ranking improve triage efficiency and cross-case comparability. Together, the issue positions a holistic defense framework that couples blockchain forensics, discourse-informed attribution, and automated threat enrichment to mitigate modern cyber threats.

Identified Gaps

The editorial indicates a need for integrated analysis across technical forensics, fraud discourse, and automated detection because fragmented interventions are insufficient. It provides no direct evidence on victim experiences, relationship-grooming processes, reporting, recovery, or the comparative effectiveness of specific interventions in pig-butchering cases.

Methods

This editorial synthesizes four studies in a journal issue. The summarized methods include multi-platform blockchain tracing, exposure screening, thematic flow analysis, qualitative discourse analysis, forensic tracing with Gamma generalized linear modeling of 112 airdrop cases, and transformer-based evaluation of HIDS-alert enrichment across controlled alerts and Windows event logs.

Limitations

This publication is an editorial overview rather than a report of original, integrated empirical research. Its claims summarize four separate studies, with limited methodological detail, no full underlying datasets, and no direct victim-level evidence. Findings about pig-butchering are confined to sanctioned Bitcoin addresses and financial-network architecture.

Future Work

Develop and evaluate interdisciplinary safeguards that combine blockchain forensics, qualitative analysis of fraud attribution, and automated threat triage. Research should assess whether coordinated technical, institutional, and policy responses improve proactive detection and disruption of evolving cyber scams.

See how this publication connects to RSRC's living evidence syntheses through current citations and research-topic mapping.