## 3 Review Methodology  
This section offers a systematic description used for the detailed review. The innovative reviewing methodologies in this study are inspired by the meta-analysis (PRISMA) [98; 99] and the \"mentefacto conceptual design\" [100]. Articles published between 2017 and 2022 were given priority during selection. Nonetheless, the year of publication is irrelevant when the need arises for a historical perspective in the review. According to [101], computer science and engineering-related studies can preferably come from the following databases: IEEE Xplore, ScienceDirect, Wiley, Springer, Taylor and Francis, and select social sites such as Academia and Researchgate, Sage, and Google Scholar. In addition, only papers written in the English language we considered for final analysis. Using the key search \"ITS\", \"IoV\", \"ICV\", \"IDS\", \"AI\", and \"XAI\", a summary of papers according to the database source is listed in Table 2. Similarly, the PRISMA flow diagram for the systematic reviews and the basis for the final selection of articles are shown in Figure 4. Quantitative analysis was done using only XAI papers for IDS. Therefore, the results of the screened literature were systematically summarized and reported by a narrative comprehensive analysis. Specifically, the steps of this analysis include determining the review problem, sorting out and comparing the data, and drawing conclusions [97]. The inclusion criteria for papers used in the survey are:  
1. Articles must be original articles published in journals, arXiv, or conference proceedings. 2. Except for the purpose of history or background, only papers published between 2017 and 2023 were considered for final inclusion for discussion. 3. For qualitative analysis, only papers that addressed the issues and concerns of ITS and ICV security using AI/XAI were considered. 4. In comparing this review paper with recent review works, ICVs, security, and AI must be covered to qualify for comparison. 5. The papers have to be written entirely in English. 6. Finally, the papers whose databases had access restrictions were excluded because the authors could not access them. Figure 4: PRISMA flow showing the process of the final selection of the 137 papers at the reference and the 7 specific articles that focused on XAI for IDS in ICV. The summary of document search and usage are summarized in Table 2 and Figure 4, respectively. A total of 393 (337 + 56) documents were identified by the search. A total of 97 documents were excluded due to duplication, leaving a total of 296 for screening. Sixty-seven were further excluded after screening for relevance and elimination of papers with open abstracts but restricted access to full paper content. Of the 162 documents remaining, 25 were excluded using the inclusion criteria above. Thus, a total of 137 documents were used for the survey. A total of 130 of these were used for qualitative analysis, while the other 7 (see Table 3) were used for the specific review since they were strictly papers on XAI for IDSs, while 10 papers (see Table 4) served the purpose of the XAI framework details for background studies. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l l} \hline
**Database Source** & **No. of Documents** & \% **Freq** \\ \hline IEEE Xplore (Journals) & 52 & 37.96 \\ \hline IEEE Xplore (Conferences) & 12 & 8.76 \\ \hline Taylor and Francis & 4 & 2.92 \\ \hline Wiley & 4 & 2.92 \\ \hline MDPI & 8 & 5.84 \\ \hline Springer & 11 & 8.03 \\ \hline ACM & 4 & 2.92 \\ \hline ArXiv Pre-print & 9 & 6.57 \\ \hline Google Scholar & 7 & 5.11 \\ \hline ScienceDirect (Elsevier) & 15 & 10.95 \\ \hline Other sources (Blogs, Reports, and Websites) & 11 & 8.02 \\ \hline Total & 137 & 100.00 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Publications used in this review.