The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
PeerTrust: Supporting Reputation-Based Trust for Peer-to-Peer Electronic Communities
Abstract
Peer-to-peer (P2P) online communities are commonly perceived as an environment offering both opportunities and threats. One way to minimize threats in such communities is to use community-based reputations to help estimate the trustworthiness of peers. We present PeerTrust - a reputation-based trust supporting framework, which includes a coherent adaptive trust model for quantifying and comparing the trustworthiness of peers based on a transaction-based feedback system, and a decentralized implementation of such a model over a structured P2P network. PeerTrust model has two main features. First, we introduce three basic trust parameters and two adaptive factors in computing trustworthiness of peers, namely, feedback a peer receives from other peers, the total number of transactions a peer performs, the credibility of the feedback sources, transaction context factor, and the community context factor. Second, we define a general trust metric to combine these parameters. Other contributions of the paper include strategies used for implementing the trust model in a decentralized P2P environment, evaluation mechanisms to validate the effectiveness and cost of PeerTrust model, and a set of experiments that show the feasibility and benefit of our approach.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Managerial Incentive Problems: A Dynamic Perspective
Holmstrom, B. (1999) · Review of Economic Studies · doi:10.1111/1467-937x.00083 · Cited by 3,172
Resnick, P., Kuwabara, K., Zeckhauser, R., & Friedman, E. (2000) · Communications of the ACM · doi:10.1145/355112.355122 · Cited by 2,190 · cited 2×
“Reputation systems [28] provide a way for building trust through social control by utilizing communitybased feedback about past experiences of peers to help making recommendation and judgment on quality and reliability of the transactions.”
BackgroundManaging trust in a peer-2-peer information system
Aberer, K., & Despotovic, Z. (2001) · Proceedings of the tenth international conference on Information and knowledge management - CIKM'01 · doi:10.1145/502636.502638 · Cited by 915
Cited by
Trustworthiness Management in the Social Internet of Things
Nitti, M., Girau, R., & Atzori, L. (2014) · IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering · doi:10.1109/tkde.2013.105 · Cited by 508
Distributed and cloud computing: from parallel processing to the Internet of things
(2012) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.49-5712 · Cited by 314
Reputation systems: A survey and taxonomy
Hendrikx, F., Bubendorfer, K., & Chard, R. (2015) · Journal of Parallel and Distributed Computing · doi:10.1016/j.jpdc.2014.08.004 · Cited by 219
Price Determinants on Airbnb: How Reputation Pays Off in the Sharing Economy
(2017) · Journal of Self-Governance and Management Economics · doi:10.22381/jsme5420173 · Cited by 206
Trust Management in Cloud Computing: A Critical Review
Firdhous, M., Ghazali, O., & Hassan, S. (2012) · International Journal on Advances in ICT for Emerging Regions (ICTer) · doi:10.4038/icter.v4i2.4674 · Cited by 77
Metadata
- Authors
- Xiong, L., & Liu, L.
- Venue
- IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering
- Published
- 2004-07
- Volume
- 16
- Issue
- 07
- Pages
- 843-857
- ISSN
- 1041-4347 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2130234299
- Cited by
- 1,788
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 271.01
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: PeerTrust: Supporting Reputation-Based Trust for Peer-to-Peer Electronic Communities. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1109/tkde.2004.1318566
- The paper
- Xiong, L., & Liu, L. (2004). PeerTrust: Supporting Reputation-Based Trust for Peer-to-Peer Electronic Communities. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering. https://doi.org/10.1109/tkde.2004.1318566
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.