Growing reliance on digital knowledge sharing across academic, corporate, and public sectors has raised serious concerns about data integrity, trust, and security. Blockchain consensus mecha-nisms offer a promising path forward through decentralized, transparent, and tamper-proof frameworks. This systematic review examines how these mechanisms enhance trust in knowledge sharing platforms, focusing on four directions: how these mechanisms are applied within knowledge sharing con-texts, the challenges they introduce for knowledge sharing de-ployment, and the advantages they provide to trust-based knowledge sharing ecosystems. Following PRISMA 2020 guide-lines, three databases Scopus, IEEE Xplore, and Web of Science were searched, and peer-reviewed studies published between 2020 and 2025 were selected for analysis. In terms of knowledge sharing applications, blockchain consensus mechanisms build trust through multiple co-occurring pathways, including distrib-uted verification, transparency, cryptographic security, immu-tability, incentive alignment, and smart contract automation. Algorithms such as Proof of Work, Proof of Stake, Delegated Proof of Stake, and Byzantine Fault Tolerance variants are widely adopted, each offering different trade-offs between secu-rity, efficiency, and scalability. In terms of challenges, scalabil-ity, energy consumption, and integration complexity with exist-ing systems remain the most significant barriers to adoption. In terms of advantages, blockchain consistently delivers stronger data security, greater transparency, and reduced dependence on centralized authorities across knowledge sharing contexts. This review concludes that blockchain consensus mechanisms offer layered and compounding trust benefits, yet technical and or-ganizational barriers continue to limit widespread deployment. Future research should focus on energy-efficient protocols, scalable architectures, and real-world effectiveness studies.
Zulkifli et al. (Thu,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: