## 3 SLR Methodology
### Included  
During the final stage of the review process, the information gathered during the eligibility step was analyzed through the qualitative synthesis of each document. The purpose of collecting general information was to identify the key characteristics of each study. After gathering this data, each record and report retrieved was independently screened by four reviewers. All reviewers worked independently during the screening process, ensuring thorough evaluation and minimizing potential bias. No automation tools were used at any stage of this process. Therefore, each document addressed one of the RQs. Studies considered by a reviewer to not adequately address at least one RQ were eliminated. In cases where multiple results were available for the same outcome, the primary outcome as defined by the study authors was prioritized. If studies presented multiple measures or time points for the same outcome, we applied two criteria, (1) the publication date and (2) a comparison of the results across different contexts to identify consistent patterns or discrepancies in the outcomes related to cyber-attacks, to determine which results to collect. This approach ensured consistency and relevance across all included studies. As a result of this procedure, six publications were excluded, leaving a total of 110 papers to form the basis for the analyses in this SLR. Throughout the process, general information is recorded regarding the year of publication, journal name, author's country, country to which the paper is applied, keywords, and MSCN actor.  
Figure 3 illustrates a bibliometric summary that contextualizes the results of the search conducted. The visualization includes key data points, including the countries with the highest number of publications, the most recurring themes within those publications, and the years with the highest volume of papers. By highlighting the geographic distribution of scholarly output, this figure underscores the global reach and collaborative nature  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{p{56.9 pt} p{113.8 pt} p{113.8 pt}} \hline \hline
**Stage** & **Criteria** & **Description** \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{1. Filtering process} & Language Peer-reviewed Quality & English language Journals Q1 or Q2 by JCR 2023 \\ \cline{2-3} \cline{3-3} \multirow{3}{*}{2. Research Questions} & Cyber-attack events & Does the paper mention cyber-attacks? Does the paper mention historical evidence of cyber-attacks? Does the paper mention preventative solutions for cyber-attacks? Does the paper mention mitigation solutions for cyber-attacks? Does the paper apply any Industry 4.0-based technology? Does the paper recommend the use of any Industry 4.0 technologies? \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 3: Inclusion and exclusion criteria.  
of research in the field. The data were processed in Bibliometric R\({}^{\text{\textregistered}}\) (R version 4.2.3; Bibliometrix version 4.3.0). [41]  
In addition, the representation of recurring topics provides insight into the prevailing areas of interest, thereby offering a focused perspective on the major research trends. The temporal distribution of publications, on the other hand, illustrates the dynamic evolution of scholarly attention and identifies specific periods of intensified research activity. Taken together, this bibliometric analysis serves as a foundational reference, enabling a deeper understanding of the subsequent sections and supporting a comprehensive interpretation of the research landscape. This contextual layer is critical for identifying the field's maturity and potential gaps or emerging areas that merit further exploration.  
The following sections provide a comprehensive presentation of the outcomes of this step. The analysis was divided into two parts: descriptive statistics based on the general information gathered from the 110 selected papers, and an in-depth examination of each paper concerning the RQs.