Survey on Astroturfing Detection and Analysis from an Information Technology Perspective
Open accessAbstract
With the development of the Internet, user comments produced an unprecedented impact on information acquisition, goods purchase, and other aspects. For example, the user comments can quickly render a topic the focus of discussion in social networks. It can promote the sales of goods in e-commerce, and it influences the ratings of books, movies, or albums. Among these network applications and services, “astroturfing,” a kind of online suspicious behavior, can generate abnormal, damaging, and even illegal behaviors in cyberspace that mislead public perception and bring a bad effect on Internet users and society. Hence, the manner of detecting and combating astroturfing behavior has become highly urgent, attracting interest from researchers both from information technology and sociology. In the current paper, we restudy it mainly from the perspective of information technology, summarize the latest research findings of astroturfing detection, analyze the astroturfing feature, classify the machine learning-based detection methods and evaluation criteria, and introduce the main applications. Different from the previous surveys, we also discuss the new future directions of astroturfing detection, such as cross-domain astroturfing detection and user privacy protection.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Disinformation and astroturfing both mislead the public and can negatively affect public debates, which thereby lose authenticity, but the two phenomena are not intrinsically and systematically linked.
“Disinformation and astroturfing both mislead the public (Chen et al., 2021) and can negatively affect public debates (García-Orosa, 2021;Schoch et al., 2022), which thereby lose authenticity (Al-Rawi & Rahman, 2020;Chan, 2022;Lits, 2021a;Lock & Seele, 2017), but it does not follow that the two phenomena are intrinsically and systematically linked.”
From Beyond Verification| Inauthentic Authenticity: Astroturfing to Generate True Affect Using Fakery (2026) · cites this paper as Chen et al., 2021
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Beyond Verification| Inauthentic Authenticity: Astroturfing to Generate True Affect Using Fakery
Alloing, C., Fournier, V., Reid, V., Germain, S., Turbide, O., & Yates, S. (2026) · International Journal of Communication · doi:10.65476/qd17zh66
- Authors
- Chen, T., Liu, J., Wu, Y., Tian, Y., Tong, E., Niu, W., Li, Y., Xiang, Y., & Wang, W.
- Affiliations
- Beijing Jiaotong University (CN)
- Corresponding author
- Tong, Endong
- Niu, Wenjia
- ORCID
- Venue
- Security and Communication Networks
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2021-12-01
- Volume
- 2021
- Pages
- 1-16
- ISSN
- 1939-0114 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-0122
- OpenAlex
- W3216329246
- Cited by
- 10
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2
- FWCI
- 1.25
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Locations
- Security and Communication Networks (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- National Natural Science Foundation of China (61972025, 61802389, 61672092, U1811264, 61966009, 2020YFB1005604, 2020YFB2103802)
- National Basic Research Program of China (61972025, 61802389, 61672092, U1811264, 61966009, 2020YFB1005604, 2020YFB2103802)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Spam and Phishing Detection
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Hate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection
- Keywords
- astroturfing, online comments, evaluation criteria, cross-domain detection, user privacy protection, social media manipulation, online customer reviews
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review