SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Finans Ekonomi ve Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 11 Sayı: 3

PROFESSIONAL SKEPTICISM IN THE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE ERA

YAPAY ZEKÂ ÇAĞINDA MESLEKİ ŞÜPHECİLİK

Pinar Santemiz(MARMARA ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0009-0009-4903-0511
Onur Erişen(MARMARA ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-7945-8318
Pages
—
Publication Date
2026-10-01
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The findings indicate a need for testable and measurable standards, enhanced AI literacy among auditors, and strengthened interdisciplinary coordination among regulators, academics, and practitioners to align AI applications with the principles of objectivity, privacy, transparency, accountability, and reliability.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The increasing integration of artificial intelligence into audit processes including research and idea generation, document summarization, and report preparation raises the question of how professional skepticism can be preserved.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Based on literature review, this study interrogates whether AI can independently exercise professional skepticism and identifies four major challenges in AI-assisted auditing: data dependence, insufficient transparency and explainability, automation bias, and constraints on AI auditability.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The findings indicate a need for testable and measurable standards, enhanced AI literacy among auditors, and strengthened interdisciplinary coordination among regulators, academics, and practitioners to align AI applications with the principles of objectivity, privacy, transparency, accountability, and reliability.
🔬Design:Review & Systematic Survey
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Mesleki Şüphecilik · Yapay Zekâ · Denetim

Abstract

The increasing integration of artificial intelligence into audit processes including research and idea generation, document summarization, and report preparation raises the question of how professional skepticism can be preserved. Based on literature review, this study interrogates whether AI can independently exercise professional skepticism and identifies four major challenges in AI-assisted auditing: data dependence, insufficient transparency and explainability, automation bias, and constraints on AI auditability. The findings indicate a need for testable and measurable standards, enhanced AI literacy among auditors, and strengthened interdisciplinary coordination among regulators, academics, and practitioners to align AI applications with the principles of objectivity, privacy, transparency, accountability, and reliability. This study emphasizes that professional skepticism is not just a data-processing skill but, more importantly, a human-centered competence involving professional judgment, contextual assessment, and ethical responsibility. Accordingly, AI should be positioned as a supportive tool in auditing that, when used consciously and responsibly, can strengthen professional skepticism.

Özet

Yapay zekânın araştırma ve fikir üretimi, belge özetleme ve rapor hazırlama gibi denetim süreçlerine giderek artan biçimde entegre edilmesi, mesleki şüpheciliğin nasıl korunabileceği sorusunu gündeme getirmektedir. Literatür taramasına dayanan bu çalışma, yapay zekânın mesleki şüpheciliği bağımsız biçimde uygulayıp uygulayamayacağını sorgulamakta ve yapay zekâ destekli denetimde karşılaşılan dört temel zorluğu ele almaktadır: veriye bağımlılık, şeffaflık ve açıklanabilirlik eksikliği, otomasyon önyargısı ve yapay zekânın denetlenebilirliği. Bulgular, yapay zekâ uygulamalarının nesnellik, mahremiyet, şeffaflık, hesap verebilirlik ve güvenilirlik ilkelerine uygun hale gelebilmesi için test edilebilir ve ölçülebilir standartların geliştirilmesi, denetçilerin yapay zekâ okuryazarlığının artırılması ve düzenleyiciler, akademi ile uygulayıcılar arasında disiplinler arası koordinasyonun sağlanması gerektiğini göstermektedir. Bu çalışma, mesleki şüpheciliğin salt bir veri işleme becerisi değil, muhakeme, bağlamsal değerlendirme ve etik sorumluluk içeren insan merkezli bir yetkinlik olduğunu, bu nedenle yapay zekânın denetimde destekleyici bir araç olarak konumlandırılması gerektiğini ve bilinçli ve sorumlu biçimde kullanıldığında şüpheciliği güçlendirebileceğini vurgulamaktadır

🔖

Cite This Article

Santemiz, P., Erişen, O. (2026). PROFESSIONAL SKEPTICISM IN THE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE ERA. Finans Ekonomi ve Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, Cilt: 11 Sayı: 3. https://doi.org/10.29106/fesa.2008185

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (58)

  1. Almufadda, G. ve Almezeini, N. (2022). Artificial intelligence applications in the auditing profession: A literature review. Journal of Emerging Technologies in Accounting, 19(2), 29–42. https://doi.org/10.2308/JETA-2020-083
  2. Al Shammakhi, B., Rodgers, W., Esplin, A. M., Tiron-Tudor, A. ve Yan, J. (2026). Proposing the throughput model as a potential cognitive-behavioral framework for employing explainable AI/ML technologies for fraud risk assessments: An exploratory empirical investigation. Journal of Enterprise Information Management. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEIM-08-2025-0770
  3. Appelbaum, D., Kogan, A. ve Vasarhelyi, M. (2017). Big data and analytics in the modern audit engagement: Research needs. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 36(4), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.2308/ajpt-51684
  4. Aquino, A. C. B., Lino, A. F., Azevedo, R. R. ve Silva, P. B. (2022). Digital affordances and remote public audit practice. Financial Accountability & Management, 38(3), 447–467. https://doi.org/10.1111/faam.12337
  5. Arntz, M., Gregory, T. ve Zierahn, U. (2016). The risk of automation for jobs in OECD countries: A comparative analysis (OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers No. 189). OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/5jlz9h56dvq7-en
  6. Brown-Liburd, H., Issa, H. ve Lombardi, D. (2015). Behavioral implications of big data's impact on audit judgment and decision making and future research directions. Accounting Horizons, 29(2), 451–468. https://doi.org/10.2308/acch-51023
  7. Brundage, M., Avin, S., Wang, J., Belfield, H., Krueger, G., Hadfield, G., Khlaaf, H., Yang, J., Toner, H., Fong, R., Maharaj, T., Koh, P. W., Hooker, S., Leung, J., Trask, A., Bluemke, E., Lebensold, J., O'Keefe, C., Koren, M., … Anderljung, M. (2020). Toward trustworthy AI development: Mechanisms for supporting verifiable claims. Computing Research Repository (CoRR), abs/2004.07213, 1–80. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2004.07213
  8. Celestin, M. ve Vanitha, N. (2019a). The future of auditing in the age of AI: How automation is reshaping the audit profession. International Journal of Interdisciplinary Research in Arts and Humanities, 4(2), 44–51. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.16413970
  9. Celestin, M. ve Vanitha, N. (2019b). The rise of remote auditing: Challenges, opportunities, and best practices. International Journal of Computational Research and Development, 4(2), 13–20. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.16152006
  10. Deliu, D. (2024). Professional judgment and skepticism amidst the interaction of AI and human intelligence. Audit Financiar, 4(176), 724–741. https://doi.org/10.20869/AUDITF/2024/176/024
  11. Earley, C. E. (2015). Data analytics in auditing: Opportunities and challenges. Business Horizons, 58(5), 493–500. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2015.05.002
  12. Estep, C., Griffith, E. ve Mackenzie, N. (2023). How do financial executives respond to the use of artificial intelligence in financial reporting and auditing? Review of Accounting Studies, 29(3), 2798–2831. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11142-023-09771-y
  13. European Commission. (2021). Artificial Intelligence Act. Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence and amending Regulations http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj
  14. European Parliamentary Research Service (EPRS). (2022). Auditing the quality of datasets used in algorithmic decision-making systems. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document/EPRS_STU(2022)729541
  15. Fedyk, A., Hodson, J., Khimich, N. ve Fedyk, T. (2022). Is artificial intelligence improving the audit process? Review of Accounting Studies, 27, 938–985. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11142-022-09697-x
  16. Frey, C. B. ve Osborne, M. A. (2017). The future of employment: How susceptible are jobs to computerisation? Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 114, 254–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.08.019
  17. Gartner. (2025). Benchmarking generative AI in internal audit. Retrieved from https://www.gartner.com/en/audit-risk/trends/genai-in-audit
  18. Gasperz, J., Titaley, M. ve Latuconsina, R. (2026). Algorithmic judgement versus professional skepticism: Redefining auditor decision-making in AI-supported audits. Int. Journal of Economic Literature (INJOLE), 3(7), 267–281. Retrieved from https://sociohum.net/index.php/INJOLE/article/view/733
  19. Gu, H., Schreyer, M., Moffitt, K. ve Vasarhelyi, M. (2024). Artificial intelligence co-piloted auditing. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, 54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.accinf.2024.100698
  20. Gu, Y., Parker, C. A. Z. ve Vasarhelyi, M. (2026). Synergizing machine and human judgment: Evidence from going concern assessment. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaccpubpol.2026.107435
  21. Hurtt, R. K., Brown-Liburd, H., Earley, C. E. ve Krishnamoorthy, G. (2013). Research on auditor professional skepticism: Literature synthesis and opportunities for future research. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 32(1), 45–97. https://doi.org/10.2308/ajpt-50361
  22. International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board. (2019). ISA 315 (Revised 2019): Identifying and assessing the risks of material misstatement.
  23. International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board. (2020). International Standard on Auditing 220 (Revised), quality management for an audit of financial statements.
  24. International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board. (2020, November). Non-authoritative support material related to technology: Frequently asked questions (FAQ)—The use of automated tools and techniques when identifying and assessing risks of material misstatement in accordance with ISA 315 (Revised 2019). International Federation of Accountants.
  25. International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board. (2024). 2023–2024 handbook of international quality management, auditing, review, other assurance, and related services pronouncements (Vol. 1). International Federation of Accountants.
  26. Issa, H., Sun, T. ve Vasarhelyi, M. (2016). Research ideas for artificial intelligence in auditing: The formalization of audit and workforce supplementation. Journal of Emerging Technologies in Accounting, 13(2), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.2308/jeta-10511
  27. Kokina, J., Blanchette, S., Davenport, T. ve Pachamanova, D. (2025). Challenges and opportunities for artificial intelligence in auditing: Evidence from the field. Int. Journal of Accounting Information Systems, 56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.accinf.2025.100734
  28. Kokina, J. ve Davenport, T. (2017). The emergence of artificial intelligence: How automation is changing auditing. Journal of Emerging Technologies in Accounting, 14(1), 115–122. https://doi.org/10.2308/jeta-51730
  29. Koshiyama, A., Kazim, E., Treleaven, P., Rai, P., Szpruch, L., Pavey, G., Ahamat, G., Leutner, F., Goebel, R., Knight, A. ve Adams, J. (2024). Towards algorithm auditing: Managing legal, ethical and technological risks of AI, ML and associated algorithms. Royal Society Open Science, 11(5). https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.230859
  30. Krahel, J. ve Titera, W. (2015). Consequences of big data and formalization on accounting and auditing standards. Accounting Horizons, 29(2), 409–422. https://doi.org/10.2308/acch-51065
  31. Kwok, S., Omran, M. ve Yu, P. (2024). Audit digitalization, do-calculus, and professional judgment: A practical evidence from China. In S. Kwok, M. Omran ve P. Yu (Eds.), Harnessing technology for knowledge transfer in accountancy, auditing, and finance (s. 1–25). IGI Global Scientific Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4018/979-8-3693-1331-2.ch001
  32. Lehner, O., Ittonen, K., Silvola, H., Ström, E. ve Wührleitner, A. (2022). Artificial intelligence based decision-making in accounting and auditing: Ethical challenges and normative thinking. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 35(9), 109–135. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-09-2020-4934
  33. Li, Y. ve Goel, S. (2025). Making it possible for the auditing of AI: A systematic review of AI audits and AI auditability. Information Systems Frontiers, 27(3), 1121–1151. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-024-10508-8
  34. Marcus, G. (2018). Deep learning: A critical appraisal. Computing Research Repository (CoRR), abs/1801.00631, 1–27. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1801.00631
  35. Mökander, J. (2023). Auditing of AI: Legal, ethical and technical approaches. Digital Society, 2(3), 49. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44206-023-00074-y
  36. Mökander, J. ve Floridi, L. (2021). Ethics-based auditing to develop trustworthy AI. Minds and Machines, 31(2), 323–327. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-021-09557-8
  37. Munoko, I., Brown-Liburd, H. ve Vasarhelyi, M. (2020). The ethical implications of using artificial intelligence in auditing. Journal of Business Ethics, 167(2), 209–234. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04407-1
  38. Murikah, W., Nthenge, J. ve Musyoka, F. (2024). Bias and ethics of AI systems applied in auditing-a systematic review. Scientific African, 25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sciaf.2024.e02281
  39. Nainggolan, A. N. ve Winoto, A. (2025). Governance through skepticism: The role of questioning mind, suspense of judgment, AI, auditor judgment, and the ethics of strong institutions. In 2025 International Conference on Computing and Applied Informatics (ICCAI). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCAI65301.2025.11278986
  40. Nelson, M. (2009). A model and literature review of professional skepticism in auditing. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 28(2), 1–34. https://doi.org/10.2308/aud.2009.28.2.1
  41. NYC. (2021). Law 144: Automated employment decision tools (AEDT). https://www.nyc.gov/site/dca/about/automated-employment-decision-tools.page
  42. Omoteso, K. (2012). The application of artificial intelligence in auditing: Looking back to the future. Expert Systems with Applications, 39(9), 8490–8495. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2012.01.098
  43. Page, C. (2025, October). Deloitte refunds Aussie gov after AI fabrications slip into $440k welfare report. Retrieved from https://www.theregister.com/software/2025/10/06/deloitte-refunds-australian-government-over-ai-in-report/722000
  44. Pearl, J. (2009). Causality: Models, reasoning, and inference. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511803161
  45. Puthukulam, G., Ravikumar, A., Sharma, R. V. K. ve Meesaala, K. M. (2021). Auditors' perception on the impact of artificial intelligence on professional skepticism and judgment in Oman. Universal Journal of Accounting and Finance, 9(5), 1184–1190. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujaf.2021.090527
  46. Raji, I., Smart, A., White, R., Mitchell, M., Gebru, T., Hutchinson, B., Smith-Loud, J., Theron, D. ve Barnes, P. (2020). Closing the AI accountability gap: Defining an end-to-end framework for internal algorithmic auditing. In Proc. of Conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency (s. 33–44). https://doi.org/10.1145/3351095.3372873
  47. Rikhardsson, P., Kristinn, T., Bergthorsson, G. ve Batt, C. (2022). Artificial intelligence and auditing in small-and medium-sized firms: Expectations and applications. AI Magazine, 43(3), 323–336. https://doi.org/10.1002/aaai.12066
  48. Riley, E. (2025). Professional skepticism in an automated audit: Does AI erode or sharpen judgment? s. 1–13. Retrieved from SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=6912798
  49. Schafer, B. (2026). Internal audit professionals and generative artificial intelligence: Implications for public policy, research, and practice. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaccpubpol.2026.107464
  50. Schiff, D., Kelley, S. ve Camacho Ibanez, J. (2024). The emergence of artificial intelligence ethics auditing. Big Data & Society, 11(4), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/20539517241299732
  51. Schölkopf, B. (2022). Causality for machine learning. Probabilistic and causal inference: The works of Judea Pearl (s. 765–804). https://doi.org/10.1145/3501714.3501755
  52. Tursunaliev, I. U., Ergasheva, M. S., Khaydarova, D. J. ve Egamberdieva, H. O. (2026). Ethical and governance challenges of AI in accounting. In E. G. Popkova (Ed.), Effective e-business accounting and auditing through AI automatization (s. 39–58). IGI Global Scientific Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4018/979-8-3373-6886-3.ch003
  53. Umesh, E. (2026). KPMG drops AI report after false case studies exposed. Retrieved from https://www.internationalaccountingbulletin.com/news/kpmg-drops-ai-report-after-false-case-studies-exposed/
  54. Vasarhelyi, M. ve Kogan, A. (2015). Big data in accounting: An overview. Accounting Horizons, 29(2), 381–396. https://doi.org/10.2308/acch-51071
  55. Xiong, Y., Zhang, H. ve Wang, Y. (2026). Algorithmic clearance as professional communication: Public traces from AI-augmented auditing. Frontiers in Communication, 11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2026.1906209
  56. Zemankova, A. (2019a). Artificial intelligence and blockchain in audit and accounting: Literature review. Trans. on Business and Economics, 16(1), 568–581. Retrieved from https://wseas.com/journals/articles.php?id=1791
  57. Zemankova, A. (2019b). Artificial intelligence in audit and accounting: Development, current trends, opportunities and threats - literature review. Int. Conf. on Control, Artificial Intelligence, Robotics & Optimization (ICCAIRO) (s. 148–154). https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCAIRO47923.2019.00031
  58. Zhang, C., Thomas, C. ve Vasarhelyi, M. (2022). Attended process automation in audit: A framework and a demonstration. Journal of Information Systems, 36(2), 101–124. https://doi.org/10.2308/ISYS-2020-073