Spam Review Detection Techniques: A Systematic Literature Review
Source abstract
Abstract
Online reviews about the purchase of products or services provided have become the main source of users’ opinions. In order to gain profit or fame, usually spam reviews are written to promote or demote a few target products or services. This practice is known as review spamming. In the past few years, a variety of methods have been suggested in order to solve the issue of spam reviews. In this study, the researchers carry out a comprehensive review of existing studies on spam review detection using the Systematic Literature Review (SLR) approach. Overall, 76 existing studies are reviewed and analyzed. The researchers evaluated the studies based on how features are extracted from review datasets and different methods and techniques that are employed to solve the review spam detection problem. Moreover, this study analyzes different metrics that are used for the evaluation of the review spam detection methods. This literature review identified two major feature extraction techniques and two different approaches to review spam detection. In addition, this study has identified different performance metrics that are commonly used to evaluate the accuracy of the review spam detection models. Lastly, this work presents an overall discussion about different feature extraction approaches from review datasets, the proposed taxonomy of spam review detection approaches, evaluation measures, and publicly available review datasets. Research gaps and future directions in the domain of spam review detection are also presented. This research identified that success factors of any review spam detection method have interdependencies. The feature’s extraction depends upon the review dataset, and the accuracy of review spam detection methods is dependent upon the selection of the feature engineering approach. Therefore, for the successful implementation of the spam review detection model and to achieve better accuracy, these factors are required to be considered in accordance with each other. To the best of the researchers’ knowledge, this is the first comprehensive review of existing studies in the domain of spam review detection using SLR process.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Spam and Phishing Detection · Sentiment Analysis and Opinion Mining · Network Security and Intrusion Detection
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Department of Computer Science, COMSATS University Islamabad, Lahore Campus, Lahore 54000, Pakistan
Department of Software Engineering, The University of Lahore, Lahore 54000, Pakistan
Department of Electrical Engineering, COMSATS University Islamabad, Islamabad 44000, Pakistan
References (88)
Show source-provided references
1. Xue, H., Li, F., Seo, H., and Pluretti, R. (2015, January 20–22). Trust-aware review spam detection. Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE Trustcom/BigDataSE/ISPA, Helsinki, Finland.10.1109/Trustcom.2015.440 ↗
2. Text mining and Probabilistic language modeling for online review spam detection
3. Sentiment analysis: A review and comparative analysis of web services10.1016/j.ins.2015.03.040 ↗
4. Mukherjee, A., Venkataraman, V., Liu, B., and Glance, N.S. (2013, January 8–11). What Yelp fake review filter might be doing?. Proceedings of the International Conference on Web and Social Media, Cambridge, MA, USA.
5. Areas, Techniques, Challenges of Opinion Mining
6. A Survey on Detection of Shill Reviews by Measuring its Linguistic Features
7. Survey on web spam detection: Principles and algorithms10.1145/2207243.2207252 ↗
8. Recent developments in social spam detection and combating techniques: A survey10.1016/j.ipm.2016.04.009 ↗
9. User profiling in intrusion detection: A review10.1016/j.jnca.2016.06.012 ↗
10. Keele, S. (2007). Guidelines for Performing Systematic Literature Reviews in Software Engineering, Department of Computer Science University of Durham. Ver. 2.3 EBSE Technical Report.
11. Kitchenham, B. (2004). Procedures for Undertaking Systematic Reviews, Computer Science Department, Keele University (TR/SE-0401) and National ICT, Sydney Australia Ltd.. Joint technical report.
12. Wohlin, C. (2014, January 13–14). Guidelines for snowballing in systematic literature studies and replication in software engineering. Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering, London, UK.10.1145/2601248.2601268 ↗
13. Classification of sentiment reviews using n-gram machine learning approach10.1016/j.eswa.2016.03.028 ↗
14. Xue, H., and Li, F. (2017, January 19–21). A Content-Aware Trust Index for Online Review Spam Detection. Proceedings of the IFIP Annual Conference on Data and Applications Security and Privacy, Data and Applications Security and Privacy, Philadelphia, PA, USA.10.1007/978-3-319-61176-1_27 ↗
15. Ott, M., Choi, Y., Cardie, C., and Hancock, J.T. (2011, January 19–24). Finding deceptive opinion spam by any stretch of the imagination. Proceedings of the 49th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Portland, OR, USA.
16. Towards automatic filtering of fake reviews10.1016/j.neucom.2018.04.074 ↗
17. Fayazbakhsh, S.K., and Sinha, J. (Review Spam Detection: A Network-Based Approach, 2012). Review Spam Detection: A Network-Based Approach, Final Project Report CSE 590(Data Mining and Network).
18. Peng, Q. (2014). Store review spammer detection based on review relationship. Advances in Conceptual Modeling, Springer.10.1007/978-3-319-14139-8_30 ↗
19. Wang, G., Xie, S., Liu, B., and Philip, S.Y. (2011, January 11–14). Review Graph-based Online Store Review Spammer Detection. Proceedings of the 11th IEEE International Conference on Data Mining, ICDM, Vancouver, BC, Canada.10.1109/ICDM.2011.124 ↗
20. Jiang, B., and Chen, B. (2013, January 25–26). Detecting product review spammers using activity model. Proceedings of the International Conference on Advanced Computer Science and Electronics Information ICACSEI, Beijing, China.10.2991/icacsei.2013.155 ↗
21. Huang, J., Qian, T., He, G., Zhong, M., and Peng, Q. (2013). Detecting professional spam reviewers. Advanced Data Mining and Applications, Springer.10.1007/978-3-642-53917-6_26 ↗
22. Wang, J., and Liang, X. (2013, January 4–7). Discovering the rating pattern of online reviewers through data coclustering. Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Intelligence and Security Informatics (ISI), Seattle, WA, USA.10.1109/ISI.2013.6578862 ↗
23. Mukherjee, A., Liu, B., and Glance, N. (2012, January 16–20). Spotting fake reviewer groups in consumer reviews. Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on World Wide Web, Lyon, France.10.1145/2187836.2187863 ↗
24. Lu, Y., Zhang, L., Xiao, Y., and Li, Y. (2013, January 2–4). Simultaneously detecting fake reviews and review spammers using factor graph model. Proceedings of the 5th annual ACM Web Science Conference, Paris, France.10.1145/2464464.2464470 ↗
25. Aye, C.M., and Oo, K.M. (2014, January 29–30). Review spammer detection by using behaviors-based scoring methods. Proceedings of the International Conference on Advances in Engineering and Technology, Singapore.
26. Choo, E., Yu, T., and Chi, M. (2015). Detecting opinion spammer groups through community discovery and sentiment analysis. Data and Applications Security and Privacy, Springer.10.1007/978-3-319-20810-7_11 ↗
27. Li, J., Ott, M., Cardie, C., and Hovy, E. (2014, January 22–27). Towards a general rule for identifying deceptive opinion spam. Proceedings of the 52nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Baltimore, MD, USA.10.3115/v1/P14-1147 ↗
28. Li, F., Huang, M., Yang, Y., and Zhu, X. (2011, January 16–22). Learning to identify review spam. Proceedings of the Twenty-Second International Joint Conference on Artifical Intelligence, Barcelona, Spain.
29. Jindal, N., and Liu, B. (2008, January 11–12). Opinion spam and analysis. Proceedings of the International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining, Palo Alto, CA, USA.10.1145/1341531.1341560 ↗
30. Fusilier, D.H., Montes-y-Gómez, M., Rosso, P., and Cabrera, R.G. (2015, January 14–20). Detection of opinion spam with character n-grams. Proceedings of the International Conference on Intelligent Text Processing and Computational Linguistics, Cairo, Egypt.10.1007/978-3-319-18117-2_21 ↗
31. Jindal, N., Liu, B., and Lim, E.P. (2010, January 26–30). Finding Unusual Review Patterns Using Unexpected Rules. Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, Toronto, ON, Canada.10.1145/1871437.1871669 ↗
32. A Novel User-based Spam Review Detection10.1016/j.procs.2017.11.467 ↗
33. Shojaee, S., Murad, M.A., Azman, A.B., Sharef, N.M., and Nadal, S. (2013, January 8–10). Detecting deceptive reviews using lexical and syntactic features. Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Intelligent Systems Design and Applications (ISDA), Delhi, India.10.1109/ISDA.2013.6920707 ↗
34. Hammad, A.S., and El-Halees, A. (2013). An Approach for Detecting Spam in Arabic Opinion Reviews. [Ph.D. Dissertation, Islamic University of Gaza].
35. Jindal, N., and Liu, B. (2007, January 8–12). Review spam detection. Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on World Wide Web, Banff, AB, Canada.10.1145/1242572.1242759 ↗
36. Fei, G., Mukherjee, A., Liu, B., Hsu, M., Castellanos, M., and Ghosh, R. (2013, January 8–11). Exploiting Burstiness in reviews for review spammer. Proceedings of the International Conference on Web and Social Media, Cambridge, MA, USA.
37. Suspicious behavior detection: Current trends and future directions10.1109/MIS.2016.5 ↗
38. Exponential Distribution model for Review Spam Detection
39. Highlighting the Fake Reviews in Review Sequence with the Suspicious Contents and Behaviors10.12733/jics20105452 ↗
40. Mukherjee, A., Kumar, A., Liu, B., Wang, J., Hsu, M., Castellanos, M., and Ghosh, R. (2013, January 11–14). Spotting opinion spammers using behavioral footprints. Proceedings of the 19th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, Chicago, IL, USA.10.1145/2487575.2487580 ↗
41. Li, H., Fei, G., Wang, S., Liu, B., Shao, W., Mukherjee, A., and Shao, J. (2017, January 3–7). Bimodal distribution and co-bursting in review spam detection. Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on World Wide Web, Perth, Australia.10.1145/3038912.3052582 ↗
42. Fayazi, A., Lee, K., Caverlee, J., and Squicciarini, A. (2015, January 9–13). Uncovering crowdsourced manipulation of online reviews. Proceedings of the 38th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, Santiago, Chile.10.1145/2766462.2767742 ↗
43. Lim, E.P., Nguyen, V.A., Jindal, N., Liu, B., and Lauw, H.W. (2010, January 26–30). Detecting product review spammers using rating behaviors. Proceedings of the 19th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, Toronto, ON, Canada.10.1145/1871437.1871557 ↗
44. Yuan, L., Li, D., Wei, S., and Wang, M. (2018). Research of Deceptive Review Detection Based on Target Product Identification and Metapath Feature Weight Calculation. Complexity, 2018.10.1155/2018/5321280 ↗
45. Cao, J., Xia, R., Guo, Y., and Ma, Z. (2018). Collusion-aware detection of review spammers in location-based social networks. World Wide Web, Springer.10.1007/s11280-018-0614-x ↗
46. Hooi, B., Shah, N., Beutel, A., Günnemann, S., Akoglu, L., Kumar, M., Makhija, D., and Faloutsos, C. (2016, January 5–7). Birdnest: Bayesian inference for ratings-fraud detection. Proceedings of the SIAM International Conference on Data Mining, Miami, FL, USA.10.1137/1.9781611974348.56 ↗
47. Binary PSO with mutation operator for feature selection using decision tree applied to spam detection10.1016/j.knosys.2014.03.015 ↗
48. Crawford, M., Khoshgoftaar, T.M., and Prusa, J.D. (2016, January 16–18). Reducing Feature Set Explosion to Facilitate Real-World Review Spam Detection. Proceedings of the FLAIRS Conference, Key Largo, FL, USA.
49. Opinion Mining Using Decision Tree Based Feature Selection through Manhattan Hierarchical Cluster Measure
50. Affective computing and sentiment analysis10.1109/MIS.2016.31 ↗
51. A rule-based approach to emotion cause detection for Chinese micro-blogs10.1016/j.eswa.2015.01.064 ↗
52. Detecting review manipulation on online platforms with hierarchical supervised learning10.1080/07421222.2018.1440758 ↗
53. Detection of spam reviews: A sentiment analysis approach10.1007/s40012-018-0193-0 ↗
54. Survey of review spam detection using machine learning techniques10.1186/s40537-015-0029-9 ↗
55. A survey on Sentiment Analysis Algorithms for opinion mining
56. Jeyapriya, A., and Selvi, C.K. (2015, January IEEE26–27). Extracting aspects and mining opinions in product reviews using a supervised learning algorithm. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Electronics and Communication Systems (ICECS), Karpagam College of Engineering, Tamilnadu, India.10.1109/ECS.2015.7124967 ↗
57. Xuan, H.N., Le, A.C., and Nguyen, L.M. (2012, January 13–15). Linguistic Features for Subjectivity Classification. Proceedings of the International Conference on Asian Language Processing, Hanoi, Vietnam.10.1109/IALP.2012.47 ↗
58. Sentiment analysis and the complex natural language10.1186/s40294-016-0016-9 ↗
59. Document-level sentiment classification: An empirical comparison between SVM and ANN10.1016/j.eswa.2012.07.059 ↗
60. Ha, Q.T., Vu, T.T., Pham, H.T., and Luu, C.T. (2011). An upgrading feature-based opinion mining model on Vietnamese product reviews. Active Media Technology, Springer.10.1007/978-3-642-23620-4_21 ↗
61. A novel product features categorize method based on twice-clustering
62. Jia, W.J., Zhang, S., Xia, Y.J., Zhang, J., and Yu, H. (2012, January 28–30). Opinion mining based on feature-level. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Image and Signal Processing (CISP), Agadir, Morocco.
63. A Unified Framework for Detecting Author Spamicity by Modeling Review Deviation10.1016/j.eswa.2018.06.028 ↗
64. An unsupervised method for joint information extraction and feature mining across different web sites10.1016/j.datak.2008.08.009 ↗
65. Product Feature Mining with Nominal Semantic Structure
66. Sentiment Analysis over Online Product Reviews: A Survey
67. Shang, Y. (2017). Subgraph robustness of complex networks under attacks. IEEE Trans. Syst, Man Cybern. Syst., 1–12.
68. Deng, X., Li, Y., Weng, J., and Zhang, J. (2018). Feature selection for text classification: A review. Multimed. Tools Appl., 1–20.
69. Ding, X., Liu, B., and Yu, P.S. (2008, January 11–12). A Holistic Lexicon-Based Approach. Proceedings of the International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining, Palo Alto, CA, USA.10.1145/1341531.1341561 ↗
70. Annett, M., and Kondrak, G. (2008, January 28–30). A comparison of sentiment analysis techniques: Polarizing movie Blogs. Proceedings of the Conference of the Canadian Society for Computational Studies of Intelligence, Windsor, ON, Canada.10.1007/978-3-540-68825-9_3 ↗
71. He, B., Macdonald, C., He, J. (2008, January 26–30). An Effective Statistical Approach to Blog Post Opinion Retrieval. Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, Napa Valley, CA, USA.10.1145/1458082.1458223 ↗
72. Lexicon-based methods for sentiment analysis10.1162/COLI_a_00049 ↗
73. Sentiment analysis of Twitter data: A survey of techniques
74. Khan, A., Baharudin, B., and Khan, K. (2011, January 27–29). Sentiment classification from online customer reviews using lexical contextual sentence structure. Proceedings of the International Conference on Software Engineering and Computer Systems, Pahang, Malaysia.10.1007/978-3-642-22170-5_28 ↗
75. Weakness Finder: Find product weakness from Chinese reviews by using aspects-based sentiment analysis
76. Medinas, A., Zhang, D., and Levene, M. (2012, January 12). Combining lexicon and learning based approaches for concept-level sentiment analysis. Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Issues of Sentiment Discovery and Opinion Mining, Beijing, China. Article 5.10.1145/2346676.2346681 ↗
77. Hybrid consensus for averager–copier–voter networks with non-rational agents10.1016/j.chaos.2018.03.037 ↗
78. Shang, Y. (2018). Resilient multiscale coordination control against adversarial nodes. Energies, 11.10.3390/en11071844 ↗
79. Xu, C., Zhang, J., Chang, K., and Long, C. (November, January 27). Uncovering collusive spammers in Chinese review websites. Proceedings of the 22nd ACM International Conference on Information & Knowledge Management, San Francisco, CA, USA.
80. Sandulescu, V., and Ester, M. (2015, January 18–22). Detecting singleton review spammers using semantic similarity. Proceedings of the 24th international conference on World Wide Web, Florence, Italy.10.1145/2740908.2742570 ↗
81. Identify online store review spammers via social review graph
82. Wang, X., Liu, K., and Zhao, J. (August, January 30). Handling Cold-Start Problem in Review Spam Detection by Jointly Embedding Texts and Behaviors. Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
83. Ensemble-based spam detection in social IoT using probabilistic data structures10.1016/j.future.2017.09.072 ↗
84. Hazim, M., Anuar, N.B., Ab Razak, M.F., and Abdullah, N.A. (2018). Detecting opinion spams through supervised boosting approach. PLoS ONE, 13.10.1371/journal.pone.0198884 ↗
85. Document representation and feature combination for deceptive spam review detection10.1016/j.neucom.2016.10.080 ↗
86. Authentic versus fictitious online reviews: A textual analysis across luxury, budget, and mid-range hotels10.1177/0165551515625027 ↗
87. Wang, B., Xiong, S., Huang, Y., and Li, X. (2018). Review Rating Prediction Based on User Context and Product Context. Appl. Sci., 8.10.3390/app8101849 ↗
88. Sentiment Analysis of Movie Review Using Supervised Machine Learning Techniques