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 1,201–1,300 of 2,164
Who Can We Trust: A New Approach for Fraudulent Rater Detection in Reputation Systems
Cai, Y., & Zhu, D. (2020) · Decision Sciences · doi:10.1111/deci.12427 · Cited by 6
Designing Intelligent Environments – User Perceptions on Information Sharing
Chatfield, C., & Häkkilä, J. (2004) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-540-27795-8_57 · Cited by 6
Source Credibility Model for Neighbor Selection in Collaborative Web Content Recommendation
Cho, J., & Kwon, K. (2008) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-540-78849-2_9 · Cited by 6
“, trustworthiness, expertise, reputation, reliability, credibility, and so on) have been identified as key components in the solution to secure transactions in e-commerce [10][11][12][13].”
BackgroundDynamic Sliding Window Model for Service Reputation
Zhou, X., Ishida, T., & Murakami, Y. (2015) · IEEE International Conference on Services Computing · doi:10.1109/scc.2015.14 · Cited by 7
“[8] pointed out the issues dogging the reputation of web sites, such as eBay, various reputation systems based on feedback have been published to capture the reputation of service providers.”
BackgroundWang, X. W., Teo, H., & Wei, K. (2005) · National University of Singapore · Cited by 6
Detecting reviewer bias through web-based association mining
Staddon, J., & Chow, R. (2008) · doi:10.1145/1458527.1458532 · Cited by 6
Reputation as optimality measure in Wireless Sensor Network-based monitoring systems
Ciszkowski, T., Dunajewski, I., & Kotulski, Z. (2010) · Probabilistic Engineering Mechanics · doi:10.1016/j.probengmech.2010.06.009 · Cited by 6
Fair Reputation Evaluating Protocol for Mobile Ad Hoc Network
Zhulei, Nyang, D., Lee, K.-H., et al. (2007) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-540-74377-4_71 · Cited by 6
“The use of reputation systems in many different areas is increasing, not least because of their widely publicized use in online auctions and product reviews, see, for example eBay and Amazon [4].”
BackgroundTraders beware: an examination of the distribution of eBay sellers' online reputation
Lin, Z., Li, D., & Huang, W. W. (2007) · International Journal of Electronic Business · doi:10.1504/ijeb.2007.015449 · Cited by 6
“Reputation systems with positive and negative reputation scores help to manage risks and promote cooperation (Resnick et al., 2000; Whitmeyer, 2000).”
BackgroundInfluentialToward collaborative technologies supporting cognitive skills for mutual regard
Murray, T. (2007) · Computer-supported collaborative learning/The Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Conference · doi:10.3115/1599600.1599698 · Cited by 6
E-Satisfaction Ratings on Merchant Reputation Systems: An Exploratory Study
Wang, M. (2004) · e-Service Journal · doi:10.1353/esj.2006.0005 · Cited by 6
Social network analysis for cluster‐based IP spam reputation
Sadan, Z., & Schwartz, D. G. (2012) · Information Management & Computer Security · doi:10.1108/09685221211267657 · Cited by 6
Suri, N., & Narahari, Y. (2008) · IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications · doi:10.1109/jsac.2008.080911 · Cited by 6
Wellman, M. P. (2004) · Chapman & Hall/CRC computer and information science series · doi:10.1201/9780203507223.ch19 · Cited by 6
Lugano, G. (2010) · Jyväskylä University Digital Archive (University of Jyväskylä) · Cited by 6
Data Mining Meets HCI: Making Sense of Large Graphs
Chau, D. H. (2012) · doi:10.21236/ada566568 · Cited by 6
“[124] summarized that modern reputation systems face many challenges which include the difficulty to elicit honest feedback and to show faithful representations of users’ reputation.”
BackgroundA Framework for Concrete Reputation-Systems
Krukow, K., Nielsen, M., & Sassone, V. (2005) · BRICS Report Series · doi:10.7146/brics.v12i23.21889 · Cited by 6
Bilateral and Community Enforcement in a Networked Market with Simple StrategiesPreprint
Fainmesser, I. P., & Goldberg, D. A. (2011) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.1742960 · Cited by 6
“There is also an extensive literature on the incentives for truthful reporting of past transactions to centralized reputation systems and on the informativeness of reputation scores (e.g. Dellarocas 2000 and 2001, Bolton et al. 2009, Resnick et al. 2000, and Resnick and Zeckhauser 2002).”
BackgroundMotivation: a proposed taxonomy using gamification
Exton, G., & Murray, L. (2014) · Arrow@dit (Dublin Institute of Technology) · Cited by 6
Internet-Based Collaborations and Their Political SignificancePreprint
Lev‐On, A., & Hardin, R. (2009) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.1481856 · Cited by 6
Usability and credibility evaluation of electronic governments: users’ perspective
Huang, Z. H. (2010) · Brunel University Research Archive (BURA) (Brunel University London) · Cited by 6
Reputation dynamics and convergence: A basis for evaluating reputation systems
Austin, A., & Singh, M. P. (2009) · NCSU Libraries Repository (North Carolina State University Libraries) · Cited by 6
Peer-to-Peer Markets with Bilateral RatingsPreprint
Ke, T., Sun, M., & Jiang, B.-J. (2017) · Marketing science (Providence, R.I.) · doi:10.2139/ssrn.3034915 · Cited by 12
A Survey on Trust Modeling from a Bayesian PerspectivePreprint
Bin, L. (2018) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1806.03916 · Cited by 6
FRTRUST: a fuzzy reputation based model for trust management in semantic P2P gridsPreprint
Javanmardi, S., Shojafar, M., Shariatmadari, S., et al. (2014) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1404.2632 · Cited by 6
“This helps in reaching recommendations and opinions about the quality and persistence of transactions [17, 18].”
BackgroundExclusive IntermediationPreprint
Fainmesser, I. P. (2014) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.2410408 · Cited by 6
Influence of opinion leadership and consumer feedback on consumer trust
Tabar, S., Towhidi, G., Dhar, S., & Prince, B. (2025) · European Journal of Management Studies · doi:10.1108/ejms-11-2024-0117 · Cited by 6
Trustworthy IoT Services With Blockchain and Information-Centric Networking: A Survey
Rafique, W., Qadir, J., & Erol‐Kantarci, M. (2025) · IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials · doi:10.1109/comst.2025.3631362 · Cited by 5
Drivers of B2B Software Purchase Decisions
Loebbecke, C., Weiss, T. G., Powell, P. L., & Krooss, C. (2010) · Frontiers in artificial intelligence and applications · doi:10.3233/978-1-60750-577-8-535 · Cited by 6
Survivable keying for wireless ad hoc networks
Nogueira, M., Pujolle, G., Silva, E., et al. (2009) · IFIP/IEEE International Symposium on Integrated Network Management (IM) · doi:10.1109/inm.2009.5188868 · Cited by 5
“We assume the existence of a reputation system [19].”
BackgroundHybrid content filtering and reputation-based popularity for recommending blog articles
Liu, D., Liou, C., Peng, C.-C., et al. (2014) · Online Information Review · doi:10.1108/oir-12-2013-0273 · Cited by 5
MIX-Crowds, an Anonymity Scheme for File Retrieval Systems
Tang, W., & Chan, H. W. (2009) · IEEE Conference on Computer Communications (INFOCOM) · doi:10.1109/infcom.2009.5062030 · Cited by 5
“Therefore tracking of dishonest nodes may be needed with the help of a reputation system [21].”
BackgroundMalik, Z., Medjahed, B., & Rezgui, A. (2016) · ACM Transactions on Internet Technology · doi:10.1145/2792979 · Cited by 5
“At the end of a transaction, if the QoS delivered by the service provider and the estimated one are “close” (within a predetermined threshold), then the estimation is considered successful.”
BackgroundMethodTrustworthiness Management Through Social Relationships in Internet of Medical Things
Brittes, M. P., Schneider, B., & Wille, E. C. G. (2017) · Journal of Communication and Information Systems · doi:10.14209/jcis.2017.1 · Cited by 5
Mohamad, M., Ali, M., Abdullah, A. S., et al. (2018) · International Journal of Communications Network and System Sciences · doi:10.4236/ijcns.2018.115006 · Cited by 5
When Online Reputation Drives Consumers’ Online Repurchase Intentions: An Egyptian Story
Shamma, H. M., Masry, R. E., & Dutot, V. (2023) · Global Business Review · doi:10.1177/09721509231155276 · Cited by 6
GuRuChain: Guarantee and Reputation-based Blockchain Service Trading Platform
Bouchiha, M. A., Ghamri-Doudane, Y. M., Rabah, M., & Champagnat, R. (2023) · IFIP Networking Conference (IFIP Networking) · doi:10.23919/ifipnetworking57963.2023.10186408 · Cited by 5
Corten, R., Kas, J., Teubner, T., & Arets, M. (2023) · Electronic Markets · doi:10.1007/s12525-023-00655-2 · Cited by 5
“To overcome the above stated problem, most platforms make use of reputation systems that collect, aggregate, and distribute feed-back about individuals’ past behavior (Lehdonvirta, 2022; Resnick et al., 2000; Resnick & Zeckhauser, 2006; Tadelis, 2016).”
BackgroundBuilding a reputation for trustworthiness: Experimental evidence on the role of the feedback rate
Jiao, R., Przepiorka, W., & Buskens, V. (2024) · Rationality and Society · doi:10.1177/10434631241232518 · Cited by 5
“1 In this way, reputation systems collect, aggregate, and distribute feedback information about traders, products, and services (Resnick et al., 2000).”
Peer-to-Peer Markets with Bilateral Ratings
Ke, T. T., Sun, M., & Jiang, B. (2024) · Marketing Science · doi:10.1287/mksc.2022.0158 · Cited by 5
Nhat, D. T., Thäter, L., & Teubner, T. (2024) · Electronic Markets · doi:10.1007/s12525-024-00706-2 · Cited by 5
“However, eBay threatened to press charges, claiming these ratings as proprietary content (Dellarocas et al., 2006; Resnick et al., 2000).”
Eliciting Informative Text Evaluations with Large Language Models
Lu, Y., Xu, S., Zhang, Y., Kong, Y., & Schoenebeck, G. R. (2024) · ACM Conference on Economics and Computation (EC) · doi:10.1145/3670865.3673532 · Cited by 16
“For example, if customer feedback on Amazon and Yelp is inundated with shallow reviews or those generated by LLMs, consumers will struggle with making well-informed decisions [Resnick et al., 2000, Tadelis, 2016].”
Uncertain Knowledge Gathering: An Evolutionary Approach
Hooijmaijers, D., & Bright, D. (2005) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/11425274_18 · Cited by 5
“The idea of trust used in this proposal is based on work in reputation systems [14].”
MethodX2BT Trusted Reputation System: A Robust Mechanism for P2P Networks
Yu, L., Susilo, W., & Safavi–Naini, R. (2006) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/11935070_26 · Cited by 5
The low status advantage: the effect of status structure on participation in an online community
Hanson, S., & Jiang, L. (2015) · Electronic Markets · doi:10.1007/s12525-015-0200-3 · Cited by 5
Systems for player reputation with NPC agents
Brown, J. A., & Qu, Q. (2015) · IEEE Conference on Computational Intelligence and Games (CIG) · doi:10.1109/cig.2015.7317670 · Cited by 5
“Online auction such as ebay is the first application introducing reputation scheme as incentive of user behaviors based on user feedback or ratings [7].”
BackgroundFair Peer Assignment Scheme for Peer-to-Peer File Sharing
Hu, C. (2010) · KSII Transactions on Internet and Information Systems · doi:10.3837/tiis.2010.10.002 · Cited by 5
“Reciprocity-based schemes use the histories of peers’ contributions to the system as decision making processes [15], and map peers’ reputation scores to admission and resource allocation strategies [17][23].”
BackgroundInfluentialVulnerability evaluation for securely offloading mobile apps in the cloud
Zhu, H., Huang, C., & Yan, J. (2013) · IEEE International Conference on Cloud Networking · doi:10.1109/cloudnet.2013.6710564 · Cited by 5
Improving peer neighborhood on P2P video distribution networks using Push/Pull protocol
Oliveira, J. A., Prado, F., Lima, F., et al. (2014) · Computer Communications · doi:10.1016/j.comcom.2014.12.007 · Cited by 5
“One way to enhance performance is using reputation mechanisms, which aggregate opinions about the past behavior of entities in order to estimate their future behavior [29].”
BackgroundMeasuring the effect of Chinese brand name syllable processing on consumer purchases
Pan, M., Kuo, C., & Pan, C. (2015) · Internet Research · doi:10.1108/intr-11-2013-0242 · Cited by 5
“Feedback mechanisms act as credible reputation-creating devices (Resnik et al., 2000) and lead to credibility-based trust (Doney and Cannon, 1997).”
BackgroundUsing Shape to Index and Query Web Document Contents
Ferri, F., Grifoni, P., & Padula, M. (2002) · Journal of Visual Languages & Computing · doi:10.1006/jvlc.2002.0221 · Cited by 5
ILGT: Group Reputation Aggregation Method for Unstructured Peer-to-Peer Networks
Matsumoto, A., Mashimo, Y., Yasutomi, M., et al. (2010) · IEEE International Conference on Parallel and Distributed Systems (ICPADS) · doi:10.1109/icpads.2010.87 · Cited by 5
“In ILGT, to improve a high frequency of communication and long aggregate time, we limit the number of peers calculated global scores and the peers calculating global scores by using ID-List.”
MethodA Threefold Similarity Analysis of Crowdsourcing Feeds
Liu, K., Motta, G., You, L., & Ma, T. (2015) · International Conference on Service Science (ICSS) · doi:10.1109/icss.2015.14 · Cited by 5
A Hybrid Model for Ranking Cloud Services
Benedetti, M. D., D’Urso, F., Messina, F., et al. (2015) · International Conference on P2P, Parallel, Grid, Cloud and Internet Computing (3PGCIC) · doi:10.1109/3pgcic.2015.28 · Cited by 5
“Many works consider multidimensional nature of trust (for an overview see [41], [21], [37], [38]).”
BackgroundTesting the Application of Warranting Theory to Online Third Party Marketplaces
Sanders, W. S., Nutakki, G. C., & Nasraoui, O. (2016) · International Conference on Social Media and Society (SMSociety) · doi:10.1145/2930971.2930988 · Cited by 5
Reputation in Peer-Based Learning Environments
Hennis, T., Lukosch, S. G., & Veen, W. (2011) · IGI Global eBooks · doi:10.4018/978-1-61350-489-5.ch005 · Cited by 5
Jiang, W. J., Xu, Y., Guo, H., Wang, C., & Zhang, L. (2016) · Intelligent Automation & Soft Computing · doi:10.1080/10798587.2016.1152778 · Cited by 5
CONGRESS: A Hybrid Reputation System for Coping with Rating Subjectivity
Liu, Y., Zhang, J., Zhu, Q., & Wang, X. (2017) · IEEE Transactions on Computational Social Systems · doi:10.1109/tcss.2017.2724503 · Cited by 5
“transaction partners (sellers) [4]–[6].”
Li, W., Tian, F., Li, J., & Xiang, Y. (2020) · Concurrency and Computation Practice and Experience · doi:10.1002/cpe.5957 · Cited by 6
Social Network Interventions to Prevent Reciprocity-driven Polarization
Santos, F. P., Santos, F. C., Pacheco, J. M., & Levin, S. A. (2021) · Adaptive Agents and Multi-Agents Systems · doi:10.65109/myfg3885 · Cited by 6
Online marketplace sellers’ influence on rating scores and comment orientation
Huang, E. Y., Lin, S., & Hsieh, I.-T. (2021) · Electronic Commerce Research · doi:10.1007/s10660-021-09511-x · Cited by 5
Jiao, R., Przepiorka, W., & Buskens, V. (2022) · Journal of Computational Social Science · doi:10.1007/s42001-022-00160-0 · Cited by 5
Marketing an Islamic index: perceived value of KMI30 Index
Sayani, H., & Balakrishnan, M. S. (2013) · Management Research Review · doi:10.1108/01409171311314969 · Cited by 5
IncompFuse: a logical framework for historical information fusion with inaccurate data sources
Xu, J., Zadorozhny, V., & Grant, J. (2019) · Journal of Intelligent Information Systems · doi:10.1007/s10844-019-00569-6 · Cited by 5
Blockchain Based Informed Consent with Reputation Support
de Sousa, H. R., & Pinto, A. (2019) · Advances in intelligent systems and computing · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-23813-1_7 · Cited by 5
Overview, Framework, and Research Propositions of Secondhand Exchange in the Platform Economy
Soule, C. A. A., & Hanson, S. (2021) · Advances in electronic commerce (AEC) book series/Advances in electronic commerce series · doi:10.4018/978-1-7998-7545-1.ch006 · Cited by 5
Przepiorka, W. (2014) · RePEc: Research Papers in Economics · Cited by 5
An Efficient Trust Evaluation Approach in Attacker Dominated Networks in Internet of Things
Liu, W., Yin, L., Fang, B., et al. (2012) · Lecture notes in electrical engineering · doi:10.1007/978-94-007-4516-2_57 · Cited by 5
Towards Robust Reputation System Based on Clustering Approach
Zhou, X., & Matsubara, S. (2015) · IEEE International Conference on Services Computing · doi:10.1109/scc.2015.15 · Cited by 5
“[11] pointed out the issues posed by web site reputation, various reputation systems based on feedback have been published.”
BackgroundInternet-Based Community Networks: Finding the Social in Social Networks
Lawrence, K. F. (2009) · Human-computer interaction series · doi:10.1007/978-1-84800-356-9_12 · Cited by 5
Intelligent Reputation Assessment for Participants of Web-Based Customer-to-Customer Auctions
Morzy, M., Wojciechowski, M., & Zakrzewicz, M. (2005) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/11495772_50 · Cited by 5
“Reputation systems [1] are a practical way of building trust in environments with high anonymity and low trustworthiness of participants.”
BackgroundThe PwC Connection Machine: An Adaptive Expertise Provider
Göker, M. H., Thompson, C., Arajärvi, S., et al. (2006) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/11805816_40 · Cited by 5
Business to Consumer Markets on the Semantic Web
Tolksdorf, R., Bizer, C., Eckstein, R., et al. (2003) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-540-39962-9_81 · Cited by 5
“These trust services could use trust mechanisms based on information source, context or the authors reputation [21].”
BackgroundUm Modelo de Sistema de Reputação para Comunidades Virtuais
Cruz, C. C. P., & da Motta, C. L. R. (2006) · doi:10.5753/cbie.sbie.2006.348-357 · Cited by 5
“Exemplos que utilizam esse tipo de abordagem incluem a avaliação de respostas de especialistas em expert-sites [Resnick et al. 2000], ou avaliação das utilidades das revisões em sítios de comércio eletrônico [Lopes 2006].”
BackgroundInfluentialTrust, as a main barrier in adoption to B2C E-Commerce
Nagmetov, B. A. (2007) · doi:10.1109/canet.2007.4401706 · Cited by 5
“An inability to keep the website working does not encourage confidence for businesses that they provide a quality product.”
BackgroundPerceptions of Trust Between Online Auction Consumers
Malinen, S. K., & Ojala, J. (2011) · International Journal of Web Portals · doi:10.4018/jwp.2011100102 · Cited by 5
On the role of trust in collaborative Web search
Briggs, P. M., & Smyth, B. (2007) · Artificial Intelligence Review · doi:10.1007/s10462-007-9025-6 · Cited by 5
“As discussed by Resnick et al., many forums allow their users to distribute ‘points’ of some sort to others based on their posts to the forum (Resnick et al. 2000).”
BackgroundBarbagallo, D., & Comuzzi, M. (2008) · doi:10.1145/1387309.1387312 · Cited by 5
Reputation Mechanism in Peer-to-Peer Network
Wu, P., & Wu, G. (2009) · doi:10.1109/icise.2009.882 · Cited by 5
“In this model, all reputation information can be stored in the central authority [2].”
BackgroundQu, X., Yang, X., & Zhong, J. (2006) · IEEE International Symposium on Cluster Computing and the Grid (CCGrid) · doi:10.1109/ccgrid.2006.104 · Cited by 5
Trust Management for Ubiquitous Healthcare
Yuan, W., Guan, D., & Lee, S. (2008) · IEEE International Symposium on Parallel and Distributed Processing with Applications (ISPA) · doi:10.1109/ispa.2008.117 · Cited by 5
“Brief introduction of the naïve Bayes classifier Naïve Bayes is one of the most effective and efficient classification algorithms.”
MethodPrivacy in distributed reputation management
Ylitalo, K., & Kortesniemi, Y. (2006) · Security and Privacy in Communication Networks · doi:10.1109/seccmw.2005.1588297 · Cited by 5
“Although the reputation information is useful in trustwor-thiness estimation [33], [23], collecting this information also presents privacy problems.”
BackgroundEstimating global opinions by keeping users from fraud in online review systems
Centeno, R., & Hermoso, R. (2017) · Knowledge and Information Systems · doi:10.1007/s10115-017-1089-2 · Cited by 5
“However, we claim that most of these approaches focus on how to alleviate agents’ tendency to cheat when communicating their opinions [7,23,38].”
BackgroundRubin, V. L. (2009) · Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media · doi:10.1609/icwsm.v3i1.13990 · Cited by 5
“However, eliciting users’ feedback has proven to be problematic (Resnick et al. 2000).”
BackgroundA Trust-Based Reputation Management System
Gray, E. (2008) · Trinity's Access to Research Output (TARA) (Trinity College Dublin) · Cited by 5
Multi-Armed Bandit Policies for Reputation Systems
Vallée, T., Bonnet, G., & Bourdon, F. (2014) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-07551-8_24 · Cited by 5
“Many reputation systems have been proprosed [4–11].”
BackgroundBrain 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:10.65109/dqlj5483 · Cited by 5
Towards a systematic approach for the credibility of humancentric web applications
Kamthan, P. (2007) · Journal of Web Engineering · Cited by 5
Liu, J. (2010) · Digital Academic REpository of VU University Amsterdam (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam) · Cited by 5
Gaur, V., Sharma, N. K., & Bedi, P. (2012) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1201.3835 · Cited by 5
“Reputation models are an important component of emarket, help building trust and elicit cooperation among loosely connected and geographically dispersed economic agents [13].”
BackgroundElectronic word of mouth: Challenges for consumers and companies
Willemsen, L. M. (2013) · UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) · Cited by 5
Discussion of Functional Design Options for Online Rating Systems: A State-of-the-Art Analysis
Winkelmann, A., Herwig, S., Pöppelbuß, J., et al. (2009) · Journal of the Association for Information Systems · Cited by 5
Trust embedded grid system for the harmonization of practical requirements
Hwang, J., Lee, C. H., & Kim, S. (2005) · doi:10.1109/scc.2005.103 · Cited by 5
“These researches have aroused much interest in the area of eCommerce to decrease the risk in single transaction with anonymous users.”
BackgroundDesign of Merchant Reputation System: a Web-based Purchase Decision Support System.
Wang, M. (2004) · Cited by 5
A computational trust model for C2C auctions
Zhang, W., Liu, L., & Zhu, Y. (2005) · doi:10.1109/icsssm.2005.1499572 · Cited by 5
Shen, W. (2008) · Faculty Digital Archive (New York University Florence) · Cited by 7
The impact of social design on user contributions to online communities
Konstan, J. A., & Harper, F. M. (2009) · Cited by 5
Der Paradigmenwechsel in Der Vernetzten Wirtschaft: Von Der Sicherheit Zum Vertrauen
Petrovic, O., Fallenböck, M., & Kittl, C. (2003) · Evolaris · doi:10.1007/978-3-7091-6088-6_1 · Cited by 5
Limiting the Spread of Fake News on Social Media Platforms by Evaluating Users' TrustworthinessPreprint
Balmau, O., Guerraoui, R., Kermarrec, A.-M., Maurer, A., Pavlovič, M., & Willy Zwaenepoel, Y. (2018) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1808.09922 · Cited by 13
“ffort to ensure the highest possible quality of the items displayed, consideringthecredibilityofanitemto beoneofthequalitycriteria. 6 RELATED WORK Credulix shares similarities with reputation systems [46, 61, 63], in creating profiles for users (UCRs inCredulix) and in assuming that the future behavior of users will b…”
BackgroundAdaptive privacy management for distributed applications
Wu, M. (2007) · Lancaster EPrints (Lancaster University) · Cited by 4
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
