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
Items 1,001–1,100 of 2,164
New Algorithms for Mining the Reputation of Participants of Online Auctions
Morzy, M. (2005) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/11600930_12 · Cited by 10
Trust and Security in Grids: A State of the Art
Adamski, M., Arenas, A. E., Bilas, A., Fragopoulou, P., Georgiev, V., Hevia, A., Jankowski, G., Matthews, B., Meyer, N., Platte, J., et al. (2008) · Cited by 10
Reputation-Based Trust Management for P2P Networks
AYDIN, A. F., Uzun, S. E., & Pariente, M. R. (2004) · Cited by 10
Robust Reputations for Peer-to-Peer Marketplaces
Traupman, J., & Wilensky, R. (2006) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/11755593_28 · Cited by 10
A fuzzy model for context-dependent reputation
Grishchenko, V. (2004) · Cited by 10
E-auction in China: the case of Taobao
Lu, J., Wang, L. Z., & Yu, C. S. (2007) · International Journal of Electronic Finance · doi:10.1504/ijef.2007.012896 · Cited by 10
Gordon, M., Fan, W., Rafaeli, S., et al. (2003) · International Journal of Electronic Business · doi:10.1504/ijeb.2003.002166 · Cited by 10
E-Satisfaction Ratings on Merchant Reputation Systems: An Exploratory Study
Wang (2005) · e-Service Journal · doi:10.2979/esj.2005.4.1.29 · Cited by 10
Collaborative automated trust negotiation in peer-to-peer systems
Ye, S., Makedon, F., & Ford, J. (2004) · International Conference on Peer-to-Peer Computing · doi:10.1109/ptp.2004.1334937 · Cited by 10
Forman, C., Ghose, A., & Wiesenfeld, B. M. (2006) · Faculty Digital Archive (New York University Florence) · Cited by 10
The Effect of Online Reviews on Customer Satisfaction: An Expectation Disconfirmation Approach.
Picazo-Vela, S. (2010) · OpenSIUC (Southern Illinois University Carbondale) · Cited by 12
Privacy preserving reputation systems for decentralized environments
Hasan, O., & Brunie, L. (2010) · OpenGrey (Institut de l'Information Scientifique et Technique) · Cited by 11
Building Trust in Online Auction Markets Through an Economic Incentive MechanismPreprint
Ba, S., Whinston, A. B., & Zhang, H. (2017) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.2853905 · Cited by 10
Eliminating the Effect of Rating Bias on Reputation Systems
Wu, L., Ren, Z., Ren, X.-L., Zhang, J., & Lü, L. (2018) · Complexity · doi:10.1155/2018/4325016 · Cited by 9
“Reputation systems arose as a result of the need for Internet users to gain trust in the individuals they transact with online [8, 9].”
BackgroundSecured Resource Selection in Grid Computing: Trust and Reputation Sentient Scheme
Vijayakumar, V., & Banu, R. (2009) · Communications in computer and information science · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-10236-3_14 · Cited by 9
Lambert, C., Choi, F., & Chandrasekharan, E. (2024) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3686929 · Cited by 20
“Reputation systems [66, 67] and game theory [27, 28] are two more concepts that have been applied to research related to encouraging specific outcomes from contributors in online communities.”
HARM: A Hybrid Rule-Based Agent Reputation Model Based on Temporal Defeasible Logic
Kravari, K., & Bassiliades, N. (2012) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-32689-9_15 · Cited by 9
“Hence, reputation (trust) models help agents to decide who to trust, encouraging trustworthy behavior and deterring dishonest participation by providing the mean through which reputation and ultimately trust can be quantified [24].”
BackgroundLi, R., Li, J., & Asaeda, H. (2014) · IEICE Transactions on Information and Systems · doi:10.1587/transinf.2013thp0010 · Cited by 9
“By sybil attack [15], [19], [21], attacker uses the faked IDs to cooperate with each other to make the trust system run out.”
BackgroundThe Square Root Agreement Rule for Incentivizing Truthful Feedback on Online Platforms
Kamble, V., Shah, N. B., Marn, D., Parekh, A. K., & Ramchandran, K. (2022) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.2022.4375 · Cited by 9
“Reputation systems, in which people provide feedback for products or services based on their personal experiences, are a critical component of online platforms and marketplaces (Resnick et al. 2000, Jøsang et al. 2007, Tadelis 2016, Luca 2017).”
BackgroundProsocial dynamics in multiagent systems
Santos, F. P. (2024) · AI Magazine · doi:10.1002/aaai.12143 · Cited by 9
Etalle, S. S., Hartog, J. J. D., & Marsh, S. (2007) · TU/e Research Portal · doi:10.1145/1365562.1365569 · Cited by 9
“In this sense, both parties in a transaction need to know that there is a recourse to a system that will lead to the punishment of a transgressor.”
BackgroundThe Impact of Product Classification for Online Auctions
Scott, J. E., & Gregg, D. G. (2004) · Journal of the Association for Information Systems · Cited by 12
Spectrum based fraud detection in social networks
Ying, X., Wu, X., & á, D. B. (2010) · Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security · doi:10.1145/1866307.1866418 · Cited by 9
“In an auction network1, reputation systems have been used extensively by auction sites to prevent auction fraud [2], [6].”
MethodFeatures of IT Service Markets: A Systematic Literature Review
Jazayeri, B., Platenius, M. C., Engels, G., & Kundisch, D. (2016) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-46295-0_19 · Cited by 10
Negotiation in Internet of Things
Mišura, K., & Žagar, M. (2016) · Automatika · doi:10.7305/automatika.2016.10.1193 · Cited by 9
“Each device owner thus has a reputation/credibility that is calculated as the proportion of successful previous transactions his devices were involved in. IoT Mediator Platform credibility system satisfies the needed properties to qualify as a reputation system [36]: 1.”
BackgroundKlein, B. D. (2017) · Journal of the Midwest Association for Information Systems · doi:10.17705/3jmwa.00025 · Cited by 10
“Online reputation systems have the potential to offer participants in business transactions insights into the likely future behavior of their business partners (Resnick et al., 2000).”
BackgroundWalther, J. B. (2018) · Atlantic Journal of Communication · doi:10.1080/15456870.2018.1432616 · Cited by 9
“The similarity and trustworthiness of “ electronic word-of-mouth ” comments that appear to come from consumers like us are extremely consequential in e-commerce (e.g., see Resnick, Zeckhauser, Friedman, & Kuwabara, 2000).”
BackgroundClarkson, P., Vassilev, I., Rogers, A. E., Brooks, C., Wilson, N., Lawson, J., & Adams, J. (2020) · JMIR Formative Research · doi:10.2196/18565 · Cited by 10
Fortino, G., Fotia, L., Messina, F., Rosaci, D., & Sarnè, G. M. L. (2020) · Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory · doi:10.1016/j.simpat.2020.102261 · Cited by 9
Benlahbib, A., Boumhidi, A., & Nfaoui, E. H. (2022) · Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce · doi:10.1080/10919392.2022.2053454 · Cited by 10
“…(Cho, Kwon, and Park 2009; Garcin, Faltings, and Jurca 2009; Jøsang, Ismail, and Boyd 2007; Leberknight, Sen, and Chiang 2012; Paul and Richard 2002; Resnick et al. 2000; Schneider et al. 2000) or prefabricated textual feedback (Rahimi and El Bakkali, 2013) to generate a score toward online…”
BackgroundNorm Diversity and Emergence in Tag-Based Cooperation
Griffiths, N., & Flucke, G. (2011) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-21268-0_13 · Cited by 9
“However, unlike typical reputation mechanisms, the assessment is based on relatively little information, which is not predicated on repeated encounters or on a notion of (direct or indirect) reciprocity [18, 22].”
BackgroundCompeting for Attention in Online Reviews
Shen, W. (2009) · Journal of the Association for Information Systems · Cited by 9
Reusable components for online reputation systems
Sänger, J., Richthammer, C., & Pernul, G. (2015) · Journal of Trust Management · doi:10.1186/s40493-015-0015-3 · Cited by 9
Reputation-Based Systems within Computer Networks
Ibrohimovna, M., & de Groot, S. H. (2010) · International Conference on Internet and Web Applications and Services · doi:10.1109/iciw.2010.22 · Cited by 9
Quantifying Trust Based on Service Level Agreement for Software as a Service
Tan, L., Chi, C., & Deng, J. (2008) · doi:10.1109/compsac.2008.211 · Cited by 9
Gossip-Based Reputation Management for Unstructured Peer-to-Peer Networks
Zhou, R., Hwang, K., & Cai, M. (2007) · Cited by 9
On the limits of privacy in reputation systems
Schiffner, S., Pashalidis, A., & Tischhauser, E. (2011) · ACM Workshop on Privacy in the Electronic Society (WPES) · doi:10.1145/2046556.2046561 · Cited by 9
“In particular, it is shown that, systems where a user s reputation depends exclusively on the ratings he received, necessarily leak information about the relationship between ratings and reputations.”
BackgroundAn unsupervised hierarchical approach to document categorization
Wetzker, R., Alpcan, T., Bauckhage, C., Umbrath, W., & Albayrak, Ş. (2007) · IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conference on Web Intelligence · doi:10.1109/wi.2007.144 · Cited by 9
“To foster trust between the customers and to weed out dishonest behavior, many marketplaces employ a so-called reputation system [3, 12].”
BackgroundContributor Motivation in Online Knowledge Sharing Communities with Reputation Management Systems
Coleman, E. C., & Lieberman, Z. (2015) · doi:10.1145/2815782.2815810 · Cited by 9
A Hierarchical Trust Model for the Internet of Things
Liu, W., Yin, L., Fang, B., et al. (2012) · Chinese Journal of Computers · doi:10.3724/sp.j.1016.2012.00846 · Cited by 9
Analysis of Fraudulent Activity in a Brazilian Auction Site
Almendra, V. D. S., & Schwabe, D. (2009) · Cited by 9
Social question and answer sites: the story so far
Khusro, S., Alam, A., & Khalid, S. (2017) · Data Technologies and Applications · doi:10.1108/prog-11-2015-0073 · Cited by 9
“Resnick et al. (2000) stated three properties of reputation system, i.e. a long-term interaction of the entity, current interaction must be rated and should be visible in the future, and current interaction with this entity is dependent on its past reputation.”
BackgroundPrivacy in Social Information Access
Knijnenburg, B. P. (2018) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-90092-6_2 · Cited by 9
On Adversary Robust Consensus Protocols Through Joint-Agent Interactions
Angeli, D., & Manfredi, S. (2020) · IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control · doi:10.1109/tac.2020.3002251 · Cited by 9
“It is worth stressing that complex contemporary social and engineering systems often need to deal with selfish or malicious users, node faults, and attacks [25]–[29].”
BackgroundUsing and fixing biased rating schemes
Poston, R. S. (2008) · Communications of the ACM · doi:10.1145/1378727.1389969 · Cited by 9
Reputation mechanisms and electronic markets: economic issues and proposals for public procurement
Spagnolo, G., & Dini, F. (2005) · Cineca Institutional Research Information System (Tor Vergata University) · Cited by 9
A Semantic Reputation Mechanism in P2P Semantic Web
Wang, W., Zeng, G., & Yuan, L. (2006) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/11836025_66 · Cited by 9
“On the other hand, reputation-based trust management [5] has been identified as a promising solution to the problem of trust in P2P networks.”
BackgroundA User Reputation Model for DLDE Learning 2.0 Community
Jin, F., Niu, Z., Zhang, Q., Lang, H., & Qin, K. (2008) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-540-89533-6_7 · Cited by 9
Increasing Trust in e-Commerce: Concepts and Examples of Insurance Solutions
Hornig, V., & Loebbecke, C. (2001) · Journal of the Association for Information Systems · Cited by 9
Higher-Order Tarski Grothendieck as a Foundation for Formal ProofPreprint
Obua, S., Fleuriot, J., Scott, P., et al. (2014) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.4230/lipics.itp.2019.9 · Cited by 9
Evaluating Reputation Systems for Agent Mediated e-CommercePreprint
Gaur, V., Sharma, N. K., & Bedi, P. (2013) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1303.7377 · Cited by 9
“Reputation models are an important component of e-markets, help building trust and elicit cooperation among loosely connected and geographically dispersed economic agents [8].”
BackgroundTMS: A Trust Management System for Access Control in Dynamic Collaborative Environments
Adams, W. J., & Davis, N. J. (2006) · IEEE International Performance, Computing, and Communications Conference · doi:10.1109/.2006.1629401 · Cited by 9
“Resnick [8] discussed the risks in exchanging valuable information with parties who are identified only through pseudonyms and self-descriptions in centralized systems.”
BackgroundReputation-based Trust Management in Peer-to-Peer File Sharing Systems
Mekouar, L. (2010) · UWSpace (University of Waterloo) · Cited by 10
Zhao, H., & Cao, X. (2023) · Risk Management and Healthcare Policy · doi:10.2147/rmhp.s431056 · Cited by 8
Distributed Range-Free Localization of Wireless Sensor Networks via Nonlinear Dynamics
Li, S., & Li, Y. (2012) · InTech eBooks · doi:10.5772/49093 · Cited by 8
STEP: A Scalable Testing and Evaluation Platform
Christoforaki, M., & Ipeirotis, P. G. (2014) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Human Computation and Crowdsourcing · doi:10.1609/hcomp.v2i1.13159 · Cited by 8
“Online markets often rely on reputation systems for instilling trust in the participants (Resnick et al. 2000; Dellarocas 2003).”
BackgroundTowards a decision model based on trust and security risk management
Alcalde, B., Dubois, É., Mauw, S., Mayer, N., & Radomirović, S. (2009) · Open Repository and Bibliography (University of Luxembourg) · Cited by 8
Applying Reputation Mechanisms in Communities of Practice: A Case Study
Cruz, C. C. P., da Motta, C. L. R., Santoro, F. M., et al. (2020) · Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) · doi:10.3217/jucs-015-09-1886 · Cited by 8
“According to [Resnick et al. 00], Reputation Systems represent an option to help users identify reliable relationships in the Internet, allowing them to evaluate individuals’ actions, see community opinion-based reputations, and create their trust networks.”
BackgroundA Social Reputation Management for Web Communities
He, D., Peng, Z., Hong, L., et al. (2012) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-28635-3_16 · Cited by 8
Guo, C., Guo, X., Wang, G., & Hu, S. (2022) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2022.985413 · Cited by 9
Fauzi, A., Hardjosoekarto, S., Radhiatmoko, R., Herwantoko, O., Darwan, D., Manik, E. E., & Romli, Z. (2023) · International Sociology · doi:10.1177/02685809231183328 · Cited by 8
“Furthermore, the three brands with the highest sales are well-known brands that already have a brand concept containing symbolic and functional features (Park et al., 1986; Sammut-Bonnici, 2015) constructed outside the online marketplace system.”
BackgroundWu, C., & Wang, T.-Y. (2024) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2023.108132 · Cited by 9
Funktionale Gestaltungsoptionen von Online-Bewertungssystemen
Becker, J., Herwig, S., Pöppelbuß, J., et al. (2009) · Cited by 8
Dikow, H., Hasan, O., Harald Kosch, A., Brunie, L., & Sornin, R. (2013) · Computing · doi:10.1007/s00607-013-0345-x · Cited by 8
“In order to build trust and to foster collaborations, one of the principal technologies that digital ecosystems rely on is reputation systems.”
BackgroundA Dirichlet reputation system in reliable routing of wireless ad hoc network
Yang, L., Cemerlic, A., & Cui, X. (2010) · Security and Communication Networks · doi:10.1002/sec.173 · Cited by 8
A Pseudonym Changing-Based Anonymity Protocol for P2P Reputation Systems
Wei, Y., & He, Y. (2009) · International Workshop on Education Technology and Computer Science · doi:10.1109/etcs.2009.756 · Cited by 8
PTrust: Provisional Value based trust for reputation aggregation in peer-to-peer networks
Yajima, T., Matsumoto, A., & Shigeno, H. (2011) · International Symposium on Access Spaces (ISAS) · doi:10.1109/isas.2011.5960944 · Cited by 8
“Reputation aggregation method was introduced to evaluate peers in peer-to-peer networks and avoid downloading inauthentic files from malicious peers [13].”
MethodA Community-Based Trust Model for P2P Networks
Jin, H., Tu, X., Han, Z., et al. (2005) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/11557654_51 · Cited by 8
Reusability for Trust and Reputation Systems
Sänger, J., & Pernul, G. (2014) · IFIP advances in information and communication technology · doi:10.1007/978-3-662-43813-8_3 · Cited by 8
“Those steps were adapted from the three fundamental phases of reputation systems identified by [10] and [11]: feedback generation/collection, feedback aggregation and feedback distribution.”
MethodMahmoud, M. M. E. A., & Shen, X. (2014) · SpringerBriefs in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-04603-7_4 · Cited by 8
Adaptive Dispatching of Incidences Based on Reputation for SCADA Systems
Alcaraz, C., Agudo, I., Fernández-Gago, C., et al. (2009) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-03748-1_9 · Cited by 8
“According to Resnick [2], a working reputation system must have at least the following three properties:”
BackgroundSelf-adaptive Service Monitoring
Clark, K. P., Warnier, M., & Brazier, F. M. T. (2011) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-23857-4_15 · Cited by 8
“For instance, reputation is used when a consumer chooses a service provider [13].”
BackgroundContext-Aware Information Services to Support Tourist Communities
Paganelli, F., & Giuli, D. (2008) · Information Technology & Tourism · doi:10.3727/109830508788403150 · Cited by 8
Underwood, P., & Welser, H. T. (2011) · iConference · doi:10.1145/1940761.1940803 · Cited by 8
Wireless sensor deployment for collaborative sensing with mobile phones
Ruan, Z., Ngai, E. C. ‐., & Liu, J. (2011) · Computer Networks · doi:10.1016/j.comnet.2011.06.017 · Cited by 8
A hierarchical overlay with cluster-based reputation tree for dynamic peer-to-peer systems
Hu, C., & Kuo, T.-H. (2012) · Journal of Network and Computer Applications · doi:10.1016/j.jnca.2012.07.022 · Cited by 8
Reputations in Markets With Asymmetric Information: A Classroom Game
Wolf, J. R., & Myerscough, M. A. (2007) · The Journal of Economic Education · doi:10.3200/jece.38.4.393-405 · Cited by 10
“As a result of several online marketplace successes (and the suspected role that feedback systems play in these successes), trust and online reputation systems have become significant areas of research in both information systems (e.g., Ba and Pavlou 2002; Dellarocas 2003; Resnick et al. 2000) and economics (e.”
BackgroundA study of reviews and ratings on the internet
Özakça, M., & Lim, Y.-K. (2006) · CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA) · doi:10.1145/1125451.1125673 · Cited by 8
Das, A., Borisov, N., Mittal, P., et al. (2014) · ACM Symposium on Information, Computer and Communications Security · doi:10.1145/2590296.2590338 · Cited by 8
“A reputation model [36] collects, aggregates, and distributes feed-back about participants’ past behavior.”
BackgroundPerformTrust: Trust model integrated past and current performance in P2P file sharing systems
Fu, J., Xiong, H., Li, Z., et al. (2008) · IEEE/ACS International Conference on Computer Systems and Applications (AICCSA) · doi:10.1109/aiccsa.2008.4493607 · Cited by 8
Dynamic security monitoring for Virtualized Environments in Cloud computing
Maña, A., Muñoz, A., & González, J. (2011) · doi:10.1109/iwsscloud.2011.6049018 · Cited by 8
“[6-9]), trust is currently poorly assessed for the purposes of the dynamic deployment of software.”
BackgroundOnline reviews as a source of marketing research data: a literature analysis
Tuma, M. N., & Decker, R. (2013) · International Journal of Electronic Marketing and Retailing · doi:10.1504/ijemr.2013.060263 · Cited by 8
Sistemas de Reputação: Um Estudo sobre Confiança e Reputação no Comércio Eletrônico Brasileiro
Feitosa, D. D. L., & Garcia, L. S. (2016) · Revista de Administração Contemporânea · doi:10.1590/1982-7849rac20161578 · Cited by 9
A Consumer Decision-Making Model in M-Commerce
Zheng, W., & Jin, L. (2016) · Information Resources Management Journal · doi:10.4018/irmj.2016040103 · Cited by 8
Mining Deficiencies of Online Reputation Systems: Methodologies, Experiments and Implications
Xie, H. L., & Lui, J. C. S. (2017) · IEEE Transactions on Services Computing · doi:10.1109/tsc.2017.2730206 · Cited by 8
An Integrated Research Framework for Effect of EWOM
Li, J., Xue, W., Yang, F., & Ya-kun, L. (2017) · 系统科学与信息学报(英文) · doi:10.21078/jssi-2017-343-13 · Cited by 8
Shoppers' Intention to Provide Online Reviews
Tata, S. V., Prashar, S., & Parsad, C. (2019) · Journal of Electronic Commerce in Organizations · doi:10.4018/jeco.2019070103 · Cited by 8
Lin, Z., Li, D., & Huang, W. W. (2003) · IGI Global eBooks · doi:10.4018/978-1-93177-743-8.ch014 · Cited by 8
Using asymmetric keys in a certified trust model for multiagent systems
Botêlho, V., Enembreck, F., Avila, B. C., de Azevedo, H. J. S., & Scalabrin, E. E. (2010) · Expert Systems with Applications · doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2010.05.016 · Cited by 8
Reputation-Based Collaborative Management Method for Inter-Domain Routing Security
Hu, N., Zou, P., & Zhu, P. (2010) · Journal of Software · doi:10.3724/sp.j.1001.2010.03479 · Cited by 10
Cruz, R. A., & Lee, H. J. (2016) · Journal of Intelligence and Information Systems · doi:10.13088/jiis.2016.22.1.043 · Cited by 8
“To investigate the effects of reviews on sales, Resnick et al. (2000) used eBay.com to show how seller reviews affect the probability of a sale, while Chevalier and Mayzlin (2006) investigated Amazon.com and found that reviews affect book sales.”
MethodA Framework to Support QoS-Aware Usage of Web Services
Lee, E.-J., Jung, W.-S., Lee, W.-J., et al. (2005) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/11531371_43 · Cited by 8
“The reputation system is intended to aggregate and disseminate feedback on the past behaviors of the participants [8].”
BackgroundAn Efficient Feedback-based Trust Model for Pervasive Computing
Chen, J., & Bruda, S. D. (2010) · International Journal of Digital Content Technology and its Applications · doi:10.4156/jdcta.vol4.issue7.22 · Cited by 8
“Trust definitions Recent works demonstrated that using a feedbacks-based trust system is an effective way for peers to minimize the threats and protect the system [1, 2].”
BackgroundDigital cows grazing on digital grounds
Pfeiffer, T., & Nowak, M. A. (2006) · Current Biology · doi:10.1016/j.cub.2006.10.011 · Cited by 8
Incentive Compatible Adaptive Topologies for P2P Networks
Tian, H. (2006) · Journal of Software · doi:10.1360/jos170845 · Cited by 8
The MoR-Trust Distributed Trust Management System: Design and Simulation Results
Androutsellis-Theotokis, S., Spinellis, D. D., & Vlachos, V. (2007) · Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science · doi:10.1016/j.entcs.2006.11.032 · Cited by 8
“1 Email: stheotok@aueb.gr 2 Email: dds@aueb.gr 3 Email: vbill@aueb.gr This paper is electronically published in Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science”
BackgroundUsing Context Information to Improve Computation of Trust in Ad Hoc Networks
Nguyên, C. T., & Camp, O. (2008) · IEEE International Conference on Wireless and Mobile Computing, Networking and Communications (WiMob) · doi:10.1109/wimob.2008.43 · Cited by 8
Personalisierung am Beispiel des Internet-Handels
Riemer, K. (2002) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-55959-4_6 · Cited by 8
Automated Markets and Trading Agents
MacKie–Mason, J. K., & Wellman, M. P. (2006) · Deep Blue (University of Michigan) · Cited by 8
Koo, S. G. M., Lee, C. S. G., & Kannan, K. (2006) · Proceedings/Proceedings - International Conference on Computer Communications and Networks · doi:10.1109/icccn.2005.1523902 · Cited by 8
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
