4.4 Review

Detecting fake reviews with supervised machine learning algorithms

期刊

SERVICE INDUSTRIES JOURNAL
卷 42, 期 13-14, 页码 1101-1121

出版社

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/02642069.2022.2054996

关键词

Fake review; detection model development; online review platform; supervised machine learning; artificial intelligence; business intelligence

资金

  1. Ministry of Education of the Republic of Korea
  2. National Research Foundation of Korea [NRF-2019S1A3A2098438]
  3. National Research Foundation of Korea [2019S1A3A2098438] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study offers a methodological approach using AI-based supervised ML algorithms to detect fake reviews on online platforms. The findings reveal that the random forest algorithm performs the best among seven ML algorithms, with time distance being the most critical determinant of fake reviews.
This study provides an applicable methodological procedure applying Artificial Intelligence (AI)-based supervised Machine Learning (ML) algorithms in detecting fake reviews of online review platforms and identifies the best ML algorithm as well as the most critical fake review determinants for a given restaurant review dataset. Our empirical findings from analyzing 16 determinants (review-related, reviewer-related, and linguistic attributes) measured from over 43,000 online restaurant reviews reveal that among the seven ML algorithms, the random forest algorithm outperforms the other algorithms and, among the 16 review attributes, time distance is found to be the most important, followed by two linguistic (affective and cognitive cues) and two review-related attributes (review depth and structure). The present study contributes to the literature on fake online review detection, especially in the hospitality field and the body of knowledge on supervised ML algorithms.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据