Skip to main content
Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Accountable AI in Public Administration: A Bibliometric Review of Governance, Transparency, and Public Value Cover

Accountable AI in Public Administration: A Bibliometric Review of Governance, Transparency, and Public Value

Open Access
|Jul 2026

References

  1. Bloch-Wehba, H. (2020). ACCESS TO ALGORITHMS. Fordham Law Review, 88(4), 1265–1314.
  2. Bracci, E. (2023). The loopholes of algorithmic public services: An “intelligent” accountability research agenda. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 36(2), 739-763.
  3. Brown, D. (2005). Electronic government and public administration. International Review Of Administrative Sciences, 71(2), 241–254. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852305053883
  4. Cerrillo-Martínez, A., & Casadesús-de-Mingo, A. (2021). Data governance for public transparency. Profesional De La Informacion, 30(4), Article e300402. https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2021.jul.02
  5. Criado, J. I., Valero, J., & Villodre, J. (2020). Algorithmic transparency and bureaucratic discretion: The case of SALER early warning system. Information Polity, 25(4), 449-470.
  6. Cuc, L. D., Rad, D., Cilan, T. F., Gomoi, B. C., Nicolaescu, C., Almași, R., ... & Pandelica, I. (2025). From AI Knowledge to AI Usage Intention in the Managerial Accounting Profession and the Role of Personality Traits—A Decision Tree Regression Approach. Electronics, 14(6), 1107.
  7. Cuc, L. D., Rad, D., Săplăcan, S., Șendroiu, C., Bâtcă-Dumitru, G. C., Wysocki, D., ... & Manolescu, A. A. (2024). A hierarchical clustering analysis of the management accounting practices perceptions in Romania. International Journal of Computers Communications & Control, 19(6).
  8. David-Gutiérrez, J., & Castellanos-Sánchez, M. (2023). Algorithmic Transparency and Open Government in Colombia. Reflexion Politica, 25(52), 6–21.
  9. Dragomir, H., Pelau, C., & Gáti, M. (2025, July). Augmented and Virtual Reality in Retail: A Bibliometric Analysis. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Business Excellence (Vol. 19, No. 1, pp. 3988-4001). Bucharest University of Economic Studies.
  10. Engstrom, D. F., & Ho, D. E. (2020). Algorithmic accountability in the administrative state. Yale Journal on Regulation, 37(3), 800–854.
  11. Fang, X. M., Zhou, H. Y., & Chen, S. (2025). A Replication of Explaining Why the Computer Says No: Algorithmic Transparency Affects the Perceived Trustworthiness of Automated Decision-Making. Public Administration, 103(4), 1232–1252. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.70015
  12. Filgueiras, F. (2021). Artificial Intelligence in Public Administration: Ambiguity and Choice of IA Systems and Challenges of Digital Governance. Revista Del Clad Reforma Y Democracia, 5–38.
  13. Filgueiras, F. (2022). New Pythias of public administration: Ambiguity and choice in AI systems as challenges for governance. AI & Society, 37(4), 1473–1486.
  14. Henman, P. (2020). Improving public services using artificial intelligence: possibilities, pitfalls, governance. Asia Pacific Journal Of Public Administration, 42(4), 209–221. https://doi.org/10.1080/23276665.2020.1816188
  15. Kaun, A. (2022). Suing the algorithm: the mundanization of automated decision-making in public services through litigation. Information Communication & Society, 25(14), 2046–2062. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2021.1924827
  16. Loi, M., & Spielkamp, M. (2021). Towards Accountability in the Use of Artificial Intelligence for Public Administrations. Aies ’21: Proceedings Of The 2021 Aaai/Acm Conference On Ai, Ethics, And Society, 757–766. https://doi.org/10.1145/3461702.3462631
  17. Miller, S. M., & Keiser, L. R. (2021). Representative Bureaucracy and Attitudes Toward Automated Decision Making. Journal Of Public Administration Research And Theory, 31(1), 150–165. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muaa019
  18. Pantea, M. F., Cilan, T. F., Cuc, L. D., Rad, D., Bâtcă-Dumitru, G. C., Șendroiu, C., ... & Gomoi, B. C. (2024). Optimizing Romanian managerial accounting practices through digital technologies: A resource-based and technology-deterministic approach to sustainable accounting. Electronics, 13(16), 3206.
  19. Pelau, C. (2024). Artificial Intelligence in Enterprises: How Staff Competencies Requirements of Business Organisations are Evolving through the Integration of Artificial Intelligence. The Amfiteatru Economic journal, 26(67), 698-698.
  20. Rad, D., Cuc, L. D., Lile, R., Balas, V. E., Barna, C., Pantea, M. F., ... & Rad, G. (2022). A cognitive systems engineering approach using unsupervised fuzzy C-means technique, exploratory factor analysis and network analysis—A preliminary statistical investigation of the bean counter profiling scale robustness. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(19), 12821.
  21. Roehl, U. B. U. (2023). Automated decision-making and good administration: Views from inside the government machinery. Government Information Quarterly, 40(4). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2023.101864
  22. Roehl, U. B. U., & Hansen, M. B. (2024). Automated, administrative decision-making and good governance: Synergies, trade-offs, and limits. Public Administration Review, 84(6), 1184–1199. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13799
  23. Runcan, R., Hațegan, V., Toderici, O., Croitoru, G., Gavrila-Ardelean, M., Cuc, L. D., ... & Dughi, T. (2025). Ethical AI in Social Sciences Research: Are We Gatekeepers or Revolutionaries?. Societies, 15(3), 62
  24. Ruschemeier, H., & Hondrich, L. J. (2024). Automation bias in public administration–an interdisciplinary perspective from law and psychology. Government Information Quarterly, 41(3), 101953.
  25. Shah, H. (2018). Algorithmic accountability. Philosophical Transactions of The Royal Society A-Mathematical Physical And Engineering Sciences, 376(2128). https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2017.0362
  26. Vatamanu, A. F., & Tofan, M. (2025). Integrating Artificial Intelligence into Public Administration: Challenges and Vulnerabilities. Administrative Sciences, 15(4). https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci15040149
  27. Veale, M., Van Kleek, M., & Binns, R. (2018). Fairness and accountability design needs for algorithmic support in high-stakes public sector decision-making. In Proceedings of the 2018 chi conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 1-14).
  28. Waldman, A., & Martin, K. (2022). Governing algorithmic decisions: The role of decision importance and governance on perceived legitimacy of algorithmic decisions. Big Data & Society, 9(1), 20539517221100449.
  29. Williams, R., Cloete, R., Cobbe, J., Cottrill, C., Edwards, P., Markovic, M., Naja, I., Ryan, F., Singh, J., & Pang, W. (2022). From transparency to accountability of intelligent systems: Moving beyond aspirations. Data & Policy, 4, Article e7. https://doi.org/10.1017/dap.2021.37
  30. Yeung, K. (2022). The New Public Analytics as an Emerging Paradigm in Public Sector Administration. Tilburg Law Review-Journal of International And European Law, 27(2), 1–32. https://doi.org/10.5334/tilr.303
  31. Zajko, M. (2023). Automated Government Benefits and Welfare Surveillance. Surveillance & Society, 21(3), 246–258.
Language: English
Page range: 3805 - 3819
Published on: Jul 22, 2026
Published by: Bucharest University of Economic Studies
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 1 issue per year

© 2026 Ștefan TIRITEU, Andreea ZAMFIR, Dana RAD, Romina Medea GHEȚIE, published by Bucharest University of Economic Studies
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.