The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 9 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Reputation systems
Open accessAbstract
T he Internet offers vast new opportunities to interact with total strangers. These interactions can be fun, informative, even profitable. But they also involve risk. Is the advice of a self-proclaimed expert at expertcentral.com reliable? Will an unknown dotcom site or eBay seller ship items promptly with appropriate packaging? Will the product be the same one described online?
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
30 Own interpretation · 10 No basis given · 5 Sources not found · 2 No full text of the sources
In the paper
“Nevertheless, the overall rate of successful transactions remains astonishingly high for a market as”
- Also stated in: § MARC MONGEAU · hedged
“ripe with the possibility of largescale fraud and deceit”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [5] 5. Kollock, P. The production of trust in online markets. In Advances in Group Processes, vol. 16, E. Lawler, M. Macy, S. Thyne, and H. Walker, Eds. JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, 1999; see also www.sscnet.ucla.edu/soc/f aculty/kollock/papers/online_trust.htm.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § MARC MONGEAU · hedged
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The first is that people may not bother to provide feedback at all.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Such premiums are observed in auctions in auctions of coins and computer chips on eBay [3,6,7].”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [3] 3. Bajari, P. and Hortacsu, A. Winner's curse, reserve prices, and endogenous entry: Empirical insights from eBay auctions; see www.stanford.edu/ ~bajari/wp/auction/ebay.pdf.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [6] 6. Lucking-Reiley, D., Bryan, D., Prasad, N., and Reeves, D. Pennies from eBay: The determinants of price in online auctions; see www.vanderbilt.edu/econ/reiley/papers/PenniesFromEBay.pdf.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [7] 7. Houser, D. and Wooders, J. Reputation in auctions: Theory and evidence from eBay; see bpa.arizona.edu/~jwooders/ebay.pdf.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Third is the difficulty of ensuring honest reports.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“these systems help people decide whom to trust, encourage trustworthy behavior, and deter participation by those who are unskilled or dishonest.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“these systems help people decide whom to trust, encourage trustworthy behavior, and deter participation by those who are unskilled or dishonest.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Reputation systems seek to establish the shadow of the future to each transaction by creating an expectation that other people will look back on it.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Game-theory analysis demonstrates that there are inherent limitations to the effectiveness of reputation systems when participants are allowed to start over with new names [4].”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [4] 4. Friedman, E. and Resnick, P. The social cost of cheap pseudonyms; see www.si.umich.edu/~presnick/papers/identifiers/index.html.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A second difficulty in distributing feedback stems from the lack of portability from system to system.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Second, the expectation of reciprocity or retaliation in future interactions creates an incentive for good behavior.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [2] 2. Axelrod, R. The Evolution of Cooperation. Basic Books, New York, 1984.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
- Probably not a substantial claim. 20
- It may state two separate claims as one. 10
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Despite their theoretical and practical difficulties, it is reassuring that reputation systems appear to perform reasonably well.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: eBay's high rate of successful transactions is attributable to its reputation system.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“At eBay, for example, a stream of buyers interacts with the same seller.They may never buy an item from the seller again, but by sharing their opinions about the seller via the Feedback Forum, they construct a meaningful history of the seller.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If buyers do behave this way, the sellers' reputations will affect their future sales.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Despite this promise, significant challenges remain in the operating phases of such systems: eliciting, distributing, and aggregating feedback.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Over time, high-quality sellers would desert the market.Eventually, only the lowest-quality sellers would remain, a dynamic economist George Akerlof memorialized as the”
- Also stated in: § MARC MONGEAU · plain
“market for lemons”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [1] 1. Akerlof, G. The market for 'lemons': Quality uncertainty and the market mechanism. Quart. J. Econom. 84 (1970), 488-500. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § MARC MONGEAU · plain
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Even then, fear of retaliatory negative feedback or simply a desire to avoid further unpleasant interactions may keep a dissatisfied buyer quiet.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Systems that rely on the participation of large numbers of individuals accumulate trust simply by operating effectively over time.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For example, sellers with stellar reputations may enjoy a premium on their services; some users may be willing to pay for the security and comfort of high-quality services.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In terms of building trust, a boost in the quantity of information compensates for a significant reduction in its quality.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“In particular, newcomers (those with no feedback) should always be distrusted until they have somehow paid their dues, either through an entry fee or by accepting more risk or worse prices while developing their reputations.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [4] 4. Friedman, E. and Resnick, P. The social cost of cheap pseudonyms; see www.si.umich.edu/~presnick/papers/identifiers/index.html.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These simple numerical ratings fail to convey important subtleties of online interactions; for example, Did the feedback come from low-value transactions?What were the reputations of the people providing the feedback?”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Internet services operate on a vastly larger scale”
- Also stated in: § MARC MONGEAU · plain
“than Main Street and permit virtually anonymous interactions.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § MARC MONGEAU · plain
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“• Long-lived entities that inspire an expectation of future interaction;”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Today's reputation systems, by contrast, shouldn't work in theory.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“• Use of feedback to guide trust decisions.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“With clear reputation markers, low-quality sellers get lower prices, leaving a healthier market with a variety of prices and quality of service.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Prior to the Internet, such questions were answered, in part, through personal and corporate reputations.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Strangers lack known past histories or the prospect of future interaction, and they are not subject to a network of informed individuals who would punish bad and reward good behavior.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These interactions can be fun, informative, even profitable.But they also involve risk.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“• Capture and distribution of feedback about current interactions (such information must be visible in the future); and”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The Internet can vastly accelerate and add structure to the process of capturing and distributing information.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“One party could blackmail another, threatening to post negative feedback unrelated to actual performance.At the other extreme, in order to accumulate positive feedback, a group of sellers might collaborate and rate one another positively, artificially inflating their individual reputations.”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Future buyers, lacking personal histories with particular sellers, may still base their buying decisions on a sufficiently extensive public history.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“When agreeing to be rated is optional (such as when registering as a retailer at bizrate.com), doing so is likely an indication of higher-quality services, even before ratings are available.”
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Even if all reporting were complete and honest, users would find it virtually impossible to utilize the torrents of information they receive on other participants, given the lack of satisfactory summary statistics.”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Limited distribution of feedback limits its effectiveness; the future casts a shadow on only a single online arena, not on many.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The authors state this as an assumption.
Buyers provide and rely on feedback in reputation systems.
“provide and rely on feedback-isolated interactions take on attributes of long-term relationships.”
The paper relies on this without support.
eBay's high rate of successful transactions is attributable to its reputation system.
“The high rate of successful transactions is attributerd by eBay to its reputation system, called the Feedback Forum.”
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?
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Resnick et al. (2000) stated that the lack of reputation portability is problematic as ''[l]imited distribution of feedback limits its effectiveness'' (p. 48).”
From In Stars We Trust – A Note on Reputation Portability Between Digital Platforms (2022) · cites this paper as Resnick et al. 2000
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“The growth of e-auctions and other forms of e-commerce is based, to a considerable degree, on reputation and trust 5-10 .”
From Evolution of indirect reciprocity (2005) · cites this paper as [9]
In the citing paper
“Past research has argued that reputation systems and user-generated reviews may have the primary purpose of allowing users to learn more about each other before engaging in any interactions or transactions, acting as a monitoring and policing system [5,66,67].”
From Digital Identity: The effect of trust and reputation information on user judgement in the Sharing Economy (2018) · cites this paper as [67]
Citations
Cites
The Market for "Lemons": Quality Uncertainty and the Market Mechanism
Akerlof, G. A. (1970) · The Quarterly Journal of Economics · doi:10.2307/1879431 · Cited by 23,016
Axelrod, R., & Hamilton, W. D. (1981) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.7466396 · Cited by 20,065
Nielsen, R. P., & Axelrod, R. (1985) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/257983 · Cited by 6,517
The Winner's Curse, Reserve Prices, and Endogenous Entry: Empirical Insights from eBay Auctions
Bajari, P., Hortaçsu, A., & Hortacsu, A. (2003) · The RAND Journal of Economics · doi:10.2307/1593721 · Cited by 1,041
PENNIES FROM EBAY: THE DETERMINANTS OF PRICE IN ONLINE AUCTIONS*
Lucking‐Reiley, D., Bryan, D., Prasad, N., & Reeves, D. M. (2007) · Journal of Industrial Economics · doi:10.1111/j.1467-6451.2007.00309.x · Cited by 550
(1999) · Advances in group processes · Cited by 426
Lawler, E. J., & Thye, S. R. (2000) · Advances in group processes · doi:10.1016/s0882-6145(2000)17 · Cited by 247
How not to build an online market: the sociology of market microstructure
Kollock, P., & Braziel, E. R. (n.d.) · Advances in Group Processes · doi:10.1016/s0882-6145(06)23011-x
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Opinion Mining and Sentiment Analysis
Pang, B., & Lee, L. (2008) · now publishers, Inc. eBooks · doi:10.1561/9781601981516 · Cited by 6,957
Kim, D. J., Ferrin, D. L., & Rao, H. R. (2008) · Decision Support Systems · doi:10.1016/j.dss.2007.07.001 · Cited by 3,613
“Positive Reputation of Selling Party (REP) has been considered a key factor for reducing risk [4,22,108,125] creating trust [50,59,77] because it provides information that the selling party has honored or met its obligations toward other consumers in the past.”
BackgroundThe EigenTrust algorithm for reputation management in P2P networks
Kamvar, S. D., Schlosser, M. T., & Garcia-Molina, H. (2003) · Proceedings of the twelfth international conference on World Wide Web - WWW '03 · doi:10.1145/775152.775242 · Cited by 3,362
A survey of trust and reputation systems for online service provision
Jøsang, A., Ismail, R., & Boyd, C. (2007) · Decision Support Systems · doi:10.1016/j.dss.2005.05.019 · Cited by 3,330
“According to Resnick et al. [56], reputation systems must have the following three properties to operate at all: (1) Entities must be long lived, so that with every interaction there is always an expectation of future interactions.”
BackgroundThe Digitization of Word of Mouth: Promise and Challenges of Online Feedback Mechanisms
Dellarocas, C. N. (2003) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.49.10.1407.17308 · Cited by 3,583
“Online feedback mechanisms , also known as reputation systems (Resnick et al. 2000), are using the Internet’s bidirectional communication capabilities to artificially engineer large-scale, word-of-mouth networks in which individuals share opinions and experiences on a wide range of topics, including…”
Evolution of indirect reciprocity
Nowak, M. A., & Sigmund, K. (2005) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature04131 · Cited by 2,762
Ba, S., & Pavlou, P. A. (2002) · Cited by 2,256
Dholakia, U. M., Bagozzi, R. P., & Klein, L. R. (2004) · International Journal of Research in Marketing · doi:10.1016/j.ijresmar.2003.12.004 · Cited by 2,243
BOINC: A System for Public-Resource Computing and Storage
Anderson, D. P. (2005) · Fifth IEEE/ACM International Workshop on Grid Computing · doi:10.1109/grid.2004.14 · Cited by 1,924
“These facilities are integrated with the accounting system: credit and seniority provide a form of reputation system [12].”
BackgroundAirbnb: disruptive innovation and the rise of an informal tourism accommodation sector
Guttentag, D. A. (2013) · Current Issues in Tourism · doi:10.1080/13683500.2013.827159 · Cited by 1,881
Trust among strangers in internet transactions: Empirical analysis of eBay' s reputation system
Resnick, P., & Zeckhauser, R. (2004) · Advances in applied microeconomics · doi:10.1016/s0278-0984(02)11030-3 · Cited by 1,831
Self-citationPeerTrust: Supporting Reputation-Based Trust for Peer-to-Peer Electronic Communities
Xiong, L., & Liu, L. (2004) · IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering · doi:10.1109/tkde.2004.1318566 · Cited by 1,789
“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.”
BackgroundChris Forman, A., Ghose, A., & Wiesenfeld, B. M. (2008) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.1080.0193 · Cited by 1,698
“In contrast, reviewers' self-disclosure that is patterned after community norms communicates reviewers' community identification to others, helps to establish the reviewers' reputation (Resnick et al. 2000), and provides an opportunity to obtain identity-verifying responses from fellow members.”
BackgroundInfluentialThe Online Laboratory: Conducting Experiments in a Real Labor Market∗Preprint
Zeckhauser, R. J. (2016) · Cited by 1,454
Self-citationPerformance analysis of the CONFIDANT protocol
Buchegger, S., & Boudec, J. L. (2002) · doi:10.1145/513800.513828 · Cited by 1,498
Propagation of trust and distrust
Guha, R., Kumar, R., Raghavan, P., & Tomkins, A. (2004) · International World Wide Web Conference (WWW) · doi:10.1145/988672.988727 · Cited by 1,484
“There have been a number of proposed models and empirical studies of the EBay trust model [12, 16, 17, 20, 22, 19].”
BackgroundIsmail, R., & Jøsang, A. (2002) · Journal of the Association for Information Systems · Cited by 1,447
On-line trust: concepts, evolving themes, a model
Corritore, C. L., Kracher, B., & Wiedenbeck, S. (2003) · International Journal of Human-Computer Studies · doi:10.1016/s1071-5819(03)00041-7 · Cited by 1,200
“Reputation systems, also known as recommender systems, collaborative filtering or social navigation, provide a mechanism for judging who is trustworthy when parties lack a personal history of past experience with each other (Resnick and Varian, 1997; Dieberger et al., 2000; Resnick et al., 2000).”
BackgroundInfluentialThe development of initial trust in an online company by new customers
Koufaris, M., & Hampton-Sosa, W. (2004) · Information & Management · doi:10.1016/j.im.2003.08.004 · Cited by 1,114
“Feed-back information influences buyer trust and behavior while the expectation of additional future business, and the threat of retaliation from dissatisfied buyers, influence seller behavior [4,68].”
BackgroundBuchegger, S., & Boudec, J. L. (2002) · Infoscience (Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne) · Cited by 1,026
What We Know and Don't Know about Online Word-of-Mouth: A Review and Synthesis of the Literature
King, R. A., Racherla, P., & Bush, V. D. (2014) · Journal of Interactive Marketing · doi:10.1016/j.intmar.2014.02.001 · Cited by 1,130
What makes a useful online review? Implication for travel product websites
Liu, Z., & Park, S. (2015) · Tourism Management · doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2014.09.020 · Cited by 963
“As such, consumers can utilize reputation as an indication of the quality of information to reduce uncertainties regarding information quality (Helm & Mark, 2007; Resnick et al., 2000).”
BackgroundPavlou, P. A., & Dimoka, A. (2006) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.1060.0106 · Cited by 930
“Also, Resnick et al. (2006) experimentally”
A computational model of trust and reputation
Mui, L., Mohtashemi, M., & Halberstadt, A. (2003) · Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS) · doi:10.1109/hicss.2002.994181 · Cited by 923
Park, D.-H., & Kim, S. (2008) · Electronic Commerce Research and Applications · doi:10.1016/j.elerap.2007.12.001 · Cited by 848
“The previous studies in the context of online auction sites like eBay mainly deal with the effect of seller reviews [42–45].”
BackgroundReputation-based framework for high integrity sensor networks
Ganeriwal, S., Balzano, L., & Srivastava, M. B. (2008) · ACM Transactions on Sensor Networks · doi:10.1145/1362542.1362546 · Cited by 809
“E-commerce systems, such as eBay [Resnick and Zeckhauser 2000], Yahoo auctions [Resnick et al. 2000], and Internet-based systems such as Keynote [Blaze et al. 1996, 1999], maintain reputation metrics at a centralized trusted authority.”
BackgroundInfluentialA survey of attack and defense techniques for reputation systems
Hoffman, K. J., Zage, D., & Nita-Rotaru, C. (2009) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/1592451.1592452 · Cited by 774
Co-Creation: Toward a Taxonomy and an Integrated Research Perspective
Zwass, V. (2010) · International Journal of Electronic Commerce · doi:10.2753/jec1086-4415150101 · Cited by 816
Beldad, A., de Jong, M., & Steehouder, M. (2010) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2010.03.013 · Cited by 754
Fraud detection system: A survey
Abdallah, A., Maarof, M. A., & Zainal, A. B. (2016) · Journal of Network and Computer Applications · doi:10.1016/j.jnca.2016.04.007 · Cited by 840
“Mean-while, feedback reputation system contains rating scale from 1 to 5, or using several measures (friendliness, prompt response, quality product, etc.), or averaging rather than totalling feedback scores (Resnick et al., 2000).”
BackgroundReputation in Auctions: Theory, and Evidence from e Bay
Houser, D. E., & Wooders, J. (2006) · Journal of Economics & Management Strategy · doi:10.1111/j.1530-9134.2006.00103.x · Cited by 698
“For an introduction to the various ways in which reputation systems facilitate trade in otherwise anonymous settings, see Resnick et al. (2000). importance of reputation in theoretical models, empirical work has been hampered by a lack of data.”
BackgroundA survey of trust in computer science and the Semantic Web
Artz, D., & Gil, Y. (2007) · Journal of Web Semantics · doi:10.1016/j.websem.2007.03.002 · Cited by 682
“…[66] (Mui et al., 2002) [5] (Staab et al., 2004) [67] Computational and online trust models (Marsh, 1994) [68] (Ziegler and Lausen, 2005) [69] (Resnick et al., 2000) [70] (Friedman et al., 2000) [71] (Falcone and Castelfranchi, 2004) [72] (Jonker et al., 2004) [73] Game theory and agents…”
BackgroundA survey of trust in social networks
Sherchan, W., Nepal, ., & Paris, C. L. (2013) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/2501654.2501661 · Cited by 687
A Survey on Trust Management for Mobile Ad Hoc Networks
Cho, J.-H., Swami, A., & Chen, I.-R. (2010) · IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials · doi:10.1109/surv.2011.092110.00088 · Cited by 672
“…making is in our everyday life, trust establishment and management in MANETs face challenges due to the severe resource constraints, the open nature of the wireless medium, the complex dependence between the communications, social and application networks, and, hence, the complex dependency of any…”
BackgroundYang, Z., Cai, S., Zhou, Z., & Zhou, N. (2004) · Information & Management · doi:10.1016/j.im.2004.03.001 · Cited by 806
“Facilities may include user chat rooms, message board, customer reviews, reputation systems, and customer ratings [43,50].”
BackgroundSocial Networks and the Diffusion of User-Generated Content: Evidence from YouTube
Susarla, A., Oh, J., & Tan, Y. (2011) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.1100.0339 · Cited by 635
“Given the ease of creating a personalized page or channel, a user on YouTube can engage in selfexpression (Raymond 2001) as well as obtain peer recognition (Resnick et al. 2000) from social interactions with other users.”
BackgroundThe Digitization of Word-of-Mouth: Promise and Challenges of Online Feedback MechanismsPreprint
Dellarocas, C. N. (2003) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.393042 · Cited by 621
Information theoretic framework of trust modeling and evaluation for ad hoc networks
Sun, Y. L., Yu, W., Han, Z., & Liu, K. J. R. (2006) · IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications · doi:10.1109/jsac.2005.861389 · Cited by 611
“attacks as presented in [28]–[31] and a new attack strategy re-”
BackgroundInternet Users’ Information Privacy-Protective Responses: A Taxonomy and a Nomological MODEL1
Son, J.-Y., & Kim, S. S. (2008) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/25148854 · Cited by 632
“Negative word-of-mouth communication is expected to damage the reputation of online companies and reduce their future sales (Resnick et al. 2000).”
BackgroundA reputation-based approach for choosing reliable resources in peer-to-peer networks
Damiani, E., di Vimercati, D. C., Paraboschi, S., Samarati, P., & Violante, F. (2002) · ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security (CCS) · doi:10.1145/586110.586138 · Cited by 612
“Reputation models allow the expression and reasoning about trust in a peer based on its past behavior [18] and interactions other peers have experienced with it.”
BackgroundReputation-based framework for high integrity sensor networks
Ganeriwal, S., & Srivastava, M. B. (2004) · Security of ad hoc and Sensor Networks · doi:10.1145/1029102.1029115 · Cited by 579
“Reputation systems have been widely studied in the context of several diverse domains such as e-commerce [Resnick and Zeckhauser 2000; Resnick et al. 2000], Internet [Blaze et al.”
BackgroundPavlou, P. A., & Gefen, D. (2005) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.1050.0065 · Cited by 580
“Table 2 shows six common sources of PCV with an individual seller based on a thorough review of the academic (Ba and Pavlou 2002, Koh et al. 2004, Resnick, et al. 2000, Snyder 2000), and practitioner (Bernstein 2000, Collins 2001, Gross 2003, Ho 2003, IFCC 2003, O'Donnell and Swartz 2003)…”
Einav, L., Farronato, C., & Levin, J. (2016) · Annual Review of Economics · doi:10.1146/annurev-economics-080315-015334 · Cited by 553
Reputation and Feedback Systems in Online Platform Markets
Tadelis, S. (2016) · Annual Review of Economics · doi:10.1146/annurev-economics-080315-015325 · Cited by 524
“As mentioned earlier, many have attributed the success of ebay to the advent of its reputation and feedback mechanism (see, e.g., Resnick et al. (2000)).”
BackgroundBlockchain Governance—A New Way of Organizing Collaborations?
Lumineau, F., Wang, W., & Schilke, O. S. (2020) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.2020.1379 · Cited by 614
“Cus-tomers may rely on online reviews to gain knowledge about the reputation of a given supplier (Resnick et al. 2000).”
BackgroundA Robust Reputation System for P2P and Mobile Ad-hoc Networks
Buchegger, S., & Boudec, J. L. (2004) · Cited by 511
Trustworthiness Management in the Social Internet of Things
Nitti, M., Girau, R., & Atzori, L. (2013) · IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering · doi:10.1109/tkde.2013.105 · Cited by 521
“As described in [15], all information can be stored in a centralized storage to foster sharing and make easy the processing; however, it easily leads to a single point of failure.”
BackgroundRacherla, P., & Friske, W. (2012) · Electronic Commerce Research and Applications · doi:10.1016/j.elerap.2012.06.003 · Cited by 547
“As Resnick et al. (2000) note: ‘‘these simple numerical ratings fail to convey important subtleties of online interactions.”
BackgroundExpanding Explainability: Towards Social Transparency in AI systems
Ehsan, U., Liao, Q. V., Muller, M., Riedl, M. O., & Weisz, J. D. (2021) · Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3411764.3445188 · Cited by 538
Amblee, N. C., & Bui, T. (2011) · International Journal of Electronic Commerce · doi:10.2753/jec1086-4415160205 · Cited by 495
A review of volunteered geographic information quality assessment methods
Senaratne, H., Mobasheri, A., Ali, A. L., et al. (2016) · International Journal of Geographical Information Systems · doi:10.1080/13658816.2016.1189556 · Cited by 495
“Resnick et al. (2000) described contributors’ abilities and dispositions as features where this reputation can be based upon.”
BackgroundA content-driven reputation system for the wikipedia
Adler, B. T., & de Alfaro, L. (2007) · International World Wide Web Conference (WWW) · doi:10.1145/1242572.1242608 · Cited by 441
Engineering Trust: Reciprocity in the Production of Reputation Information
Bolton, G., Greiner, B., & Ockenfels, A. (2013) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.1120.1609 · Cited by 429
Brain Meets Brawn: Why Grid and Agents Need Each Other
Foster, I. T., Jennings, N. R., & Kesselman, C. (2004) · Adaptive Agents and Multi-Agents Systems · doi:10.1109/aamas.2004.78 · Cited by 428
Meng, G., Liu, Y., Zhang, J., Pokluda, A., & Boutaba, R. (2015) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/2785733 · Cited by 427
“Robustness means the resilience of collaborative security systems to attacks, especially the insider attacks such as Sybil attack [Douceur 2002], Newcomer attack [Resnick et al. 2000] and Collusion attack [Fung 2011].”
BackgroundThe Online Laboratory: Conducting Experiments in a Real Labor Market
Horton, J. J., Rand, D. G., & Zeckhauser, R. (2010) · National Bureau of Economic Research · doi:10.3386/w15961 · Cited by 402
Self-citationNodes bearing grudges: towards routing security, fairness, and robustness in mobile ad hoc networks
Buchegger, S., & Boudec, J.-Y. L. (2003) · doi:10.1109/empdp.2002.994321 · Cited by 402
Willemsen, L. M., Neijens, P. C., Bronner, F. E., & de Ridder, J. A. (2011) · Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication · doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2011.01551.x · Cited by 400
Do I Follow My Friends or the Crowd? Information Cascades in Online Movie Ratings
Lee, Y.-J., Hosanagar, K., & Tan, Y. (2015) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.2014.2082 · Cited by 377
Netprobe: a fast and scalable system for fraud detection in online auction networks
Pandit, S., Chau, D. H., Wang, S., & Faloutsos, C. (2007) · Proceedings of the 16th international conference on World Wide Web · doi:10.1145/1242572.1242600 · Cited by 382
“Our experiments prove that Incremental NetProbe executes nearly doubly fast as compared to NetProbe, while retaining over 99% of its accuracy.”
Trust Computations and Trust Dynamics in Mobile Adhoc Networks: A Survey
Govindan, K., & Mohapatra, P. (2011) · IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials · doi:10.1109/surv.2011.042711.00083 · Cited by 365
Social Network Analysis and Mining for Business Applications
Bonchi, F., Castillo, C., Gionis, A., & Jaimes, A. (2011) · ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology · doi:10.1145/1961189.1961194 · Cited by 374
“Second, in many communities positive assessments are dominant, as people are much more cautious when providing negative judgments for fear of retaliatory negative feedback, or simply to avoid further unpleasant interactions [Resnick et al. 2000].”
BackgroundSecure Multiparty Computations on Bitcoin
Andrychowicz, M., Dziembowski, S., Malinowski, D., & Mazurek, Ł. (2014) · IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (S&P) · doi:10.1109/sp.2014.35 · Cited by 348
Sun, Y. L., Han, Z., Yu, W., & Liu, K. J. R. (2006) · IEEE Conference on Computer Communications (INFOCOM) · doi:10.1109/infocom.2006.154 · Cited by 349
“If a malicious node can easily register as a new user, the trust management suffers from the newcomer attack [33].”
BackgroundManaging Online Auctions: Current Business and Research Issues
Pinker, E. J., Seidmann, A. A., & Vakrat, Y. (2003) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.49.11.1457.20584 · Cited by 346
Controversial users demand local trust metrics: An experimental study on epinions.com community
Massa, P., & Avesani, P. (2005) · Cited by 341
Taxonomy and Survey of Collaborative Intrusion Detection
Vasilomanolakis, E., Karuppayah, S., Mühlhäuser, M., & Fischer, M. (2015) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/2716260 · Cited by 330
“ACM Computing Surveys, Vol Taxonomy and Survey of Collaborative Intrusion Detection 55:7 A generic countermeasure against malicious insiders in distributed systems is the adoption of reputation systems [Resnick et al. 2000; Marti and Garcia-Molina 2006], such as EigenTrust [Kamvar et al. 2003].”
MethodThe Global Platform Economy: A New Offshoring Institution Enabling Emerging-Economy Microproviders
Lehdonvirta, V., kässi, O., Hjorth, I., Barnard, H. C., & Graham, M. (2018) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/0149206318786781 · Cited by 317
“Ratings are still subject to various biases and dysfunctions, such as reciprocal behavior (Diekmann, Jann, Przepiorka, & Wehrli, 2014), inflation over time (Filippas, Horton, & Golden, 2018), and potentially even discrimination and blackmail (Resnick, Kuwabara, Zeckhauser, & Friedman, 2000).”
BackgroundTerveen, L., & McDonald, D. W. (2005) · ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction · doi:10.1145/1096737.1096740 · Cited by 315
Helpful Reviewers in TripAdvisor, an Online Travel Community
Lee, A., Law, R., & Jamie Murphy, A. (2011) · Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing · doi:10.1080/10548408.2011.611739 · Cited by 315
“Online reputation systems help users identify reputation of others by collecting, distributing, and aggregating feedback about participants’ past behavior (Resnick et al., 2000).”
BackgroundPsychological antecedents of institution-based consumer trust in e-retailing
Walczuch, R. M., & Lundgren, H. (2004) · Information & Management · doi:10.1016/j.im.2003.12.009 · Cited by 316
“Most has been on the effects of situational factors; i.e., the design of the website and the use of brand names or trust seals [17,33,37,38,47,50–52,54 ,55 Trustismuch more important in an online situation than in an offline situation.”
Kravari, K., & Bassiliades, N. (2015) · Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation · doi:10.18564/jasss.2661 · Cited by 308
Li, F., & DU, T. C.-T. (2011) · Decision Support Systems · doi:10.1016/j.dss.2010.12.007 · Cited by 339
“A recommendation system can be further developed into a reputation system that collects information on the past behavior of participants to indicate their skill or honesty in recommending [33].”
BackgroundThe Sharing Economy and Consumer Protection Regulation: The Case for Policy Change
Koopman, C., Mitchell, M. D., & Thierer, A. D. (2014) · doi:10.2139/ssrn.2535345 · Cited by 298
Lee, J., Park, D., & Han, I. (2011) · Internet Research · doi:10.1108/10662241111123766 · Cited by 317
“Moreover, previous studies suggested the building of trust in the person-to-person and person-to-medium contexts in a web environment, such as reputation systems, through social control by utilizing community-based feedback regarding past experiences of consumers to make product recommendations (Resnick et al., 2000);…”
BackgroundReputation Mechanism Design in Online Trading Environments with Pure Moral Hazard
Dellarocas, C. N. (2005) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.1050.0054 · Cited by 278
“…2005, pp. 209–230 issn 1047-7047 eissn 1526-5536 05 1602 0209 informs ® doi 10.1287/isre.1050.0054 ©2005 INFORMS Reputation Mechanism Design in Online Trading Environments with Pure Moral Hazard Chrysanthos Dellarocas R. H. Smith School of Business, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland…”
BackgroundInfluentialBuilding trust in online auction markets through an economic incentive mechanism
Ba, S., Whinston, A. B., & Zhang, H. (2003) · Decision Support Systems · doi:10.1016/s0167-9236(02)00074-x · Cited by 282
Sybilproof reputation mechanisms
Cheng, A., & Friedman, E. (2005) · doi:10.1145/1080192.1080202 · Cited by 270
“A reputation system attempts to aggregate the peers or users’ collective experiences in order to allow a user to form an opinion about someone with whom he has not previously interacted [8].”
BackgroundSelf-citationWalther, J. B., DeAndrea, D. C., Kim, J.-S., & Anthony, J. C. (2010) · Human Communication Research · doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2010.01384.x · Cited by 270
Fraud detections for online businesses: a perspective from blockchain technology
Cai, Y., & Zhu, D. (2016) · Financial Innovation · doi:10.1186/s40854-016-0039-4 · Cited by 269
“As privacy is an important concern for users who are reluctant to provide information, Schaub et al. (2016) propose how to utilize digital signatures to design reputation systems that can protect users’ privacy. In a similar vein, Soska and Christin (2015) propose a system “Beaver,” which protects users’ privacy, whil…”
Kim, D. J., Song, Y. I., Braynov, S., & Rao, H. R. (2004) · Decision Support Systems · doi:10.1016/j.dss.2004.01.006 · Cited by 262
Social norm complexity and past reputations in the evolution of cooperation
Santos, F. P., Santos, F. C., & Pacheco, J. M. (2018) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature25763 · Cited by 264
Social Cloud Computing: A Vision for Socially Motivated Resource Sharing
Chard, K., Bubendorfer, K., Caton, S. J., & RANA, O. F. (2011) · IEEE Transactions on Services Computing · doi:10.1109/tsc.2011.39 · Cited by 255
“A model based entirely on a measure of individual reputation [20], [21], [22], [23].”
MethodNotions of reputation in multi-agents systems
Mui, L., Mohtashemi, M., & Halberstadt, A. (2002) · Adaptive Agents and Multi-Agents Systems · doi:10.1145/544741.544807 · Cited by 262
“Reputation reporting systems have been implemented in e-commerce systems and have been credited with these systems’ successes (Resnick, et al ., 2000a).”
MethodMolz, J. G. (2013) · Annals of Tourism Research · doi:10.1016/j.annals.2013.08.001 · Cited by 255
The Effect of Rumor Spreading in Reputation Systems for Mobile Ad-hoc Networks
Buchegger, S., & Boudec, J. L. (2003) · Cited by 252
A Survey on Trust Management for VANETs
Zhang, J. (2011) · International Conference on Advanced Information Networking and Applications (AINA) · doi:10.1109/aina.2011.86 · Cited by 249
“2) Newcomer Attack: These attacks occur when a malicious peer can easily register as a new user [55].”
BackgroundADVERSE SELECTION IN ELECTRONIC MARKETS: EVIDENCE FROM ONLINE STAMP AUCTIONS
Dewan, S., & Hsu, V. N. (2004) · Journal of Industrial Economics · doi:10.1111/j.0022-1821.2004.00237.x · Cited by 234
“1 See Resnick et al. [2000] for a discussion of reputation systems in online auctions and elsewhere on the Internet.”
BackgroundInfluentialRuohomaa, S., & Kutvonen, L. (2005) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/11429760_6 · Cited by 245
“Behaviour information can be gathered locally [30, 9], or it can be received as third-party observations through a reputation system [31].”
BackgroundInfluentialCommunication Processes in Participatory Websites
Walther, J. B., & Jang, J.-W. (2012) · Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication · doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2012.01592.x · Cited by 246
All Reviews are Not Created Equal: The Disaggregate Impact of Reviews and Reviewers at Amazon.ComPreprint
Chen, P.-Y., Dhanasobhon, S., & Smith, M. D. (2006) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.918083 · Cited by 240
“Moreover, when product quality cannot easily be verified, consumers can use the supplier's reputation as an indication of the quality of the product (Resnick et al. 2000).”
International entrepreneurship in internet-enabled markets
Reuber, A. R., & Fischer, E. M. (2011) · Journal of Business Venturing · doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2011.05.002 · Cited by 263
“The valenceof anonline signal is its favorability (theextenttowhichit is positiveor negative): fi rms are more likely to disclose information that favors them and to fail to disclose information that could hurt them (Resnick et al., 2000).”
BackgroundPoston, R. S., & Speier, C. (2005) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/25148678 · Cited by 236
Economic reasoning and artificial intelligence
Parkes, D. C., & Wellman, M. P. (2015) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aaa8403 · Cited by 245
Intermediation in a Sharing Economy: Insurance, Moral Hazard, and Rent Extraction
Weber, T. A. (2014) · Journal of Management Information Systems · doi:10.1080/07421222.2014.995520 · Cited by 233
“The recent growth of collaborative housing suggests that intermediation has helped to overcome a persistent market failure stemming from moral hazard issues in the shared use of private space.”
A Reputation-Based Trust Management System for P2P Networks
Aydın, A., Ersin, S., & Mark, U. (2008) · Cited by 235
Routing for disruption tolerant networks: taxonomy and design
Spyropoulos, T., Rais, R. N. B., Turletti, T., et al. (2010) · Wireless Networks · doi:10.1007/s11276-010-0276-9 · Cited by 232
Computational models of trust and reputation : agents, evolutionary games, and social networks
Mui, L. (2002) · DSpace@MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) · Cited by 228
Personalized recommendation via integrated diffusion on user–item–tag tripartite graphs
Zhang, Z., Zhou, T., & Zhang, Y. (2009) · Physica A Statistical Mechanics and its Applications · doi:10.1016/j.physa.2009.08.036 · Cited by 231
“ity of data resulted from: (i) the huge number of items far beyond user's ability to evaluate even a small fraction of them; (ii) users do not incentively wish to rate the purchased/viewed items [12]. As shown in Figure 1, besides the fundamental user-item relations, some accessorial information can be exploited…”
BackgroundSecuredTrust: A Dynamic Trust Computation Model for Secured Communication in Multiagent Systems
Das, A., & Islam, M. M. (2011) · IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing · doi:10.1109/tdsc.2011.57 · Cited by 229
“A reputation-based trust model [11], [12], [13], [14] collects, distributes, and aggregates feedback about participants' past behavior.”
Background
Metadata
- Authors
- Resnick, P., Kuwabara, K., Zeckhauser, R., & Friedman, E.
- Affiliations
- University of Michigan (US)
- Harvard University (US)
- Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey (US)
- Venue
- Communications of the ACM
- Published
- 2000-12
- Volume
- 43
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 45-48
- ISSN
- 0001-0782 (ISSN-L)
- 1557-7317
- OpenAlex
- W2337430557
- Cited by
- 2,190
- References
- 7
- Citations by year
- 2026: 38 · 2025: 32 · 2024: 37 · 2023: 33 · 2022: 36 · 2021: 52 · 2020: 58 · 2019: 66 · 2018: 66 · 2017: 87 · 2016: 87 · 2015: 93 · 2014: 110 · 2013: 111 · 2012: 134
- FWCI
- 145.25
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Communications of the ACM (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation (9977999)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Access Control and Trust
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Expert finding and Q&A systems
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Privacy, Security, and Data Protection
- Keywords
- reputation systems, online trust, online interaction, e-commerce, peer reputation
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-11, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-11 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
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
