Skip to main content

Robustness against fraudulent activities of a blockchain-based online review system


Fake reviews are a major problem in online consumer feedback systems that not only mislead people due to incorrect information but also damage the overall credibility of online businesses. Popular online review platforms have tried to overcome this problem through various strategies. However, most attempts end with vulnerabilities and untraceable results. We demonstrate how centralized online review systems are vulnerable to attacks. The blockchain-based online review system, which incorporates a token curated registry (TCR), is proposed in this work. Mathematical models are defined to analyze the capability to handle problems of centralized systems and the proposed framework. Additionally, we construct scenarios to demonstrate empirical results on fake review spam prevention. Our framework can discourage fraudsters by requiring costs and exposing their actions. Moreover, the system relies on the majority of users rather than a central authority. Furthermore, the proposed framework provides flexible and reasonable operation, and the community-driven environment provides more credible information, which is driven by customers’ decisions.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Availability of data and material

Not Applicable.


  1. Ananya Bhattacharya 2017, Trust no one: Reviews and ratings mean little to India’s online shoppers, Quartz India, viewed 18 December 2020,

  2. David Streitfeld 2013, Give Yourself 5 Stars? Online, It Might Cost You, The New York Times, viewed 18 December 2020,

  3. Chanissara is gathering evidence to catch netizens who declined review scores of the Sri Panwa hotel 2020, Post today, viewed 18 December 2020,


  1. Smith A, Anderson M (2016) Online reviews Pew Research Center, Dec. 2016. Accessed: Nov. 22, 2020. [Online]. Available:

  2. Luca M, Zervas G (2016) Fake It Till You Make It: Reputation, Competition, and Yelp Review Fraud. Manag Sci 62(12):3412–3427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Li H et al (2017) Bimodal Distribution and Co-Bursting in Review Spam Detection in Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on World Wide Web, Perth Australia pp. 1063–1072.

  4. Mayzlin D, Dover Y, Chevalier J (2014) Promotional Reviews: An Empirical Investigation of Online Review Manipulation. Am Econ Rev 104(8):2421–2455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Monaro M, Cannonito E, Gamberini L, Sartori G (2020) Spotting faked 5 stars ratings in E-Commerce using mouse dynamics. Comput Hum Behav 109:106348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Ananthakrishnan UM, Li B, Smith MD (2020) A Tangled Web: Should Online Review Portals Display Fraudulent Reviews? Inf Syst Res 31(3):1–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Stevens J, Spaid B, Breazeale M, Esmark-Jones C (2018) Timeliness, transparency, and trust: A framework for managing online customer complaints. Bus Horiz 61.

  8. Kaur A, Nayyar A, Singh P (2020) Blockchain: A Path to the Future in Cryptocurrencies and Blockchain Technology Applications. pp. 25–42.

  9. Nguyen GN, Le Viet NH, Elhoseny M, Shankar K, Gupta BB, Abd El-Latif AA (2021) Secure blockchain enabled Cyber–physical systems in healthcare using deep belief network with ResNet model. J Parallel Distrib Comput 153:150–160.

  10. Mamta, Gupta BB, Li KC, Leung VCM, Psannis KE, Yamaguchi S (2021) Blockchain-Assisted Secure Fine-Grained Searchable Encryption for a Cloud-Based Healthcare Cyber-Physical System. IEEE/CAA J Autom Sin pp. 1–14.

  11. Deep G, Mohana R, Nayyar A, Sanjeevikumar P, Hossain E (2019) Authentication Protocol for Cloud Databases Using Blockchain Mechanism. Sensors 19(20):4444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Mohan AP, Mohamed Asfak R, Gladston A (2020) Merkle Tree and Blockchain-Based Cloud Data Auditing Int J Cloud Appl Comput 10(3):54–66.

  13. Mike G, Ameen S, James Y (2017) “adchain.” Accessed: Feb. 26, 2021. [Online]. Available:

  14. Foamspace Corp (2018) “FOAM.” Accessed: Feb. 26, 2021. [Online]. Available:

  15. Karode T, Werapun W, Arpornthip T (2020) “Blockchain-based Global Travel Review Framework”. Int J Adv Comput Sci Appl 11(8).

  16. Sussin J, Thompson E (2012) The Consequences of Fake Fans, ‘Likes’ and Reviews on Social Networks Gartner, Accessed: Nov. 29, 2020. [Online]. Available:

  17. Lee J, Park D-H, Han I (2008) The effect of negative online consumer reviews on product attitude: An information processing view. Electron Commer Res Appl 7(3):341–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Lappas T, Sabnis G, Valkanas G (2016) The Impact of Fake Reviews on Online Visibility: A Vulnerability Assessment of the Hotel Industry. Inf Syst Res 27(4):940–961.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Zhao Y, Yang S, Narayan V, Zhao Y (2013) Modeling Consumer Learning from Online Product Reviews. Mark Sci 32(1):153–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Vermeulen IE, Seegers D (2009) Tried and tested: The impact of online hotel reviews on consumer consideration. Tour Manag 30(1):123–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Duan W, Gu B, Whinston A (2008) The dynamics of online word-of-mouth and product sales—An empirical investigation of the movie industry. J Retail 84(2):233–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Fang B, Ye Q, Kucukusta D, Law R (2016) Analysis of the perceived value of online tourism reviews: Influence of readability and reviewer characteristics. Tour Manag 52:498–506.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Hassan I, Azmi MNL, Abdullahi AM (2020) Evaluating the Spread of Fake News and its Detection. Techniques on Social Networking Sites. Romanian J Commun Public Relat 22(1):111.

  24. Chiriatti G, Brunato D, Dell’Orletta F, Venturi G (2019) What Makes a Review Helpful? Predicting the Helpfulness of Italian TripAdvisor Reviews CLiC-it p. 6

  25. Orlikowski WJ, Scott SV (2019) Performing Apparatus: Infrastructures of Valuation in Hospitality in Research in the Sociology of Organizations pp. 169–179.

  26. Ott M, Choi Y, Cardie C (2011) Hancock JT Finding Deceptive Opinion Spam by Any Stretch of the Imagination ArXiv preprint, Accessed: Oct. 13, 2020. [Online]. Available:

  27. Asghar MZ, Ullah A, Ahmad S, Khan A (2020) Opinion spam detection framework using hybrid classification scheme. Soft Comput 24(5):3475–3498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Li J, Cardie C, Li S (2013) TopicSpam: a Topic-Model based approach for spam detection. In Proceedings of the 51st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics 2:217–221

  29. Li J, Ott M, Cardie C, Hovy E (2014) Towards a General Rule for Identifying Deceptive Opinion Spam in Proceedings of the 52nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), Baltimore, Maryland pp. 1566–1576.

  30. Li H, Chen Z, Liu B, Wei X, Shao J (2014) Spotting Fake Reviews via Collective Positive-Unlabeled Learning in 2014 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining, Shenzhen, China pp. 899–904.

  31. Banerjee R, Feng S, Kang JS, Choi Y (2014) Keystroke Patterns as Prosody in Digital Writings: A Case Study with Deceptive Reviews and Essays in Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), Doha, Qatar pp. 1469–1473.

  32. Dellarocas C (2006) Strategic Manipulation of Internet Opinion Forums: Implications for Consumers and Firms. Manag Sci 52(10):1577–1593.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Nakamoto S (2008) Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System p. 9

  34. Buterin V (2014) “Ethereum White Paper,” Etherum

  35. Liang X, Shetty S, Tosh D, Kamhoua C, Kwiat K, Njilla L (2017) ProvChain: A Blockchain-Based Data Provenance Architecture in Cloud Environment with Enhanced Privacy and Availability in 2017 17th IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Cluster, Cloud and Grid Computing (CCGRID), Madrid, Spain pp. 468–477.

  36. Neisse R, Steri G, Nai-Fovino I (2017) A Blockchain-based Approach for Data Accountability and Provenance Tracking in Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Availability, Reliability and Security, Reggio Calabria Italy pp. 1–10.

  37. Asgaonkar A, Krishnamachari B Token Curated Registries - A Game Theoretic Approach Sep. 2018, Accessed: Feb. 24, 2021. [Online]. Available:

  38. Ramachandran GS, Radhakrishnan R, Krishnamachari B (2018) Towards a Decentralized Data Marketplace for Smart Cities in 2018 IEEE International Smart Cities Conference (ISC2), Kansas City, MO, USA pp. 1–8.

  39. Ocean Protocol Foundation, “Ocean protocol.” 2020. Accessed: Feb. 26, 2021. [Online]. Available:

  40. Kosmarski A, Gordiychuk N (2020) Token-curated registry in a scholarly journal: Can blockchain support journal communities? Learn Publ 33(3):333–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references


The authors acknowledge support from the College of Computing, Prince of Songkla University, under the BLOCK research team.


This research was supported by the Thailand Research Fundamental Fund, grant number COC6405046S.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Corresponding author

Correspondence to Warodom Werapun.

Ethics declarations


This research manuscript is original and has not been published previously and is not under consideration for publication elsewhere, in whole or in part. The corresponding author confirms that all the other authors have read and approved the manuscript and that there were no ethical issues involved.

Conflict of interest

Not applicable.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Karode, T., Werapun, W. Robustness against fraudulent activities of a blockchain-based online review system. Peer-to-Peer Netw. Appl. 15, 92–106 (2022).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:


  • Blockchain
  • Token curated registry
  • Consumer review system
  • Distributed management