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 1,301–1,400 of 2,164
A Logical Framework for Reputation Systems
Krukow, K., Nielsen, M., & Sassone, V. (2007) · ePrints Soton (University of Southampton) · Cited by 5
Building the Foundations of Cyber Humanities: Cultural Cyber-Critical Ecosystem Conceptualization
Bellini, E., & Degl’Innocenti, E. (2025) · IEEE International Conference on Cyber Humanities (IEEE-CH) · doi:10.1109/ieee-ch65308.2025.11279317 · Cited by 4
“Reputation thus serves as a form of social memory , accumulated over time through observed or auditable behaviors, peer evaluations, and institutional assessments [25], [33], [34].”
Mapping the intellectual structure of electronic commerce research: 1997-2006
Ma, Z. (2010) · International Journal of Electronic Business · doi:10.1504/ijeb.2010.030714 · Cited by 4
Sorcery: Overcoming deceptive votes in P2P content sharing systems
Zhai, E., Sun, H., Qing, S., & Chen, Z. (2010) · Peer-to-Peer Networking and Applications · doi:10.1007/s12083-010-0074-2 · Cited by 4
Survey on Crowd-based Mobile App Testing
Liu, Y., Zhang, T., & Cheng, J. (2019) · International Conference on Machine Learning and Computing (ICMLC) · doi:10.1145/3318299.3318312 · Cited by 4
Engin, A., & Vetschera, R. (2020) · Information & Management · doi:10.1016/j.im.2022.103666 · Cited by 5
Reputational Discrimination and Fairness in China’s Social Credit System
Loefflad, C., Chen, M., & Großklags, J. (2024) · Digital Government Research and Practice · doi:10.1145/3703160 · Cited by 5
“A reputation system, according to Resnick et al., “collects, distributes, and aggregates feedback about participants’ past behavior” [65].”
Social interaction models for trust systems design
Pavleska, T. (2024) · CCF Transactions on Pervasive Computing and Interaction · doi:10.1007/s42486-024-00172-x · Cited by 4
“The overarching purpose is to exploit their signaling and sanctioning roles for conflict resolution in the context of information asymmetry (Resnick et al. 2000).”
Shao, F., & Wang, N. (2025) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0326774 · Cited by 6
“…quantify interactions between market-oriented actions (e.g., niche targeting [74]) and institutional mechanisms (e.g., reputation systems [75]), thereby enabling resource prioritization toward dual-impact innovations that simultaneously enhance market distinctiveness and institutional…”
A Multidimensional Reputation Scheme for Identity Federations
Agudo, I., Fernández-Gago, C., & López, J. (2010) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-16441-5_15 · Cited by 4
“[27] P. Resnick, R. Zeckhauser, E. Friedman, and K. Kuwabara.”
BackgroundInfluentialAgent-based Trust Management and Prediction using D3-FRT
Onolaja, O., Bahsoon, R., & Theodoropoulos, G. K. (2012) · Procedia Computer Science · doi:10.1016/j.procs.2012.04.121 · Cited by 4
A Theory Analysis and Model Research on e-Commerce Credit Risk Management
Yuan, D., Lu, T., Xu, Y., et al. (2010) · International Conference on E-Business and E-Government · doi:10.1109/icee.2010.507 · Cited by 4
Trust and Reputation Based Model Selection Mechanism for Decision-Making
Zhang, B., Xiang, Y., & Xu, Q. (2010) · doi:10.1109/nswctc.2010.141 · Cited by 4
“Due to the justness of reputation, the reputation center must establish a powerful mechanism for the ranking computation.”
BackgroundResolving islands of security problem for DNSSEC
Kim, E., Gupta, A., Tsendjav, B., et al. (2006) · International Conference on Wireless Communications and Mobile Computing · doi:10.1145/1143549.1143804 · Cited by 4
“Developing concrete rules is ongoing work and are currently following the approach from [6].”
BackgroundJiang, L., Ding, L., Liu, J., & Chen, J. (2011) · Journal of Network and Computer Applications · doi:10.1016/j.jnca.2011.03.007 · Cited by 4
“Reputation system (Resnick et al., 2000) collects, distributes, and aggregates feedback about participants’ past behavior.”
BackgroundComparison and analysis of different reputation systems for peer-to-peer networks
Chaokai, H., & Wu, M. (2010) · International Conference on Advanced Computer Theory and Engineering · doi:10.1109/icacte.2010.5579838 · Cited by 4
Towards an Efficient Method for Spreading Information in Social Network
Ahmadi, H., Mehrbakhsh, A., & Asgarian, E. (2009) · Asia International Conference on Modelling & Simulation (AMS) · doi:10.1109/ams.2009.107 · Cited by 4
“It is obvious that the high communication scale of anti-entropy is a drawback which reduces the popularity of this mechanism for frequently usages.”
BackgroundAnalysis of Web Trust Networks
Ku, Y.-C., Hsiao, H., & Wei, C. (2007) · doi:10.1109/icicic.2007.167 · Cited by 4
“rather than users with similar preferences or taste [8, 9, 10, 14, 16].”
BackgroundPerseus -- A Personalized Reputation System
Nurmi, P. (2007) · IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conference on Web Intelligence · doi:10.1109/wi.2007.121 · Cited by 9
Reputation-based Majority Voting for Malicious Grid Resources Tolerance
Bendahmane, A., Essaaidi, M., Moussaoui, A. E., et al. (2001) · doi:10.12694/scpe.v11i4.669 · Cited by 4
“Reputation systems [26] are commonly used to estimate the reliability of grid resources based on past interactions.”
BackgroundProbabilistic Byzantine Tolerance Scheduling in Hybrid Cloud Environments
Arantes, L., Friedman, R., Marin, O., & Sens, P. (2017) · International Conference on Distributed Computing and Networking (ICDCN) · doi:10.1145/3007748.3007770 · Cited by 5
“Several works explored the reputation management schemes ( F i s) and its effectiveness, e.g., [4, 18, 26, 28].”
BackgroundKotenko, I. V., Saenko, I. B., & Chechulin, A. A. (2017) · Communications in computer and information science · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-69784-0_15 · Cited by 4
A heuristic attack detection approach using the “least weighted” attributes for cyber security data
Dali, L., Mivule, K., & El-Sayed, H. (2017) · Intelligent Systems Conference (IntelliSys) · doi:10.1109/intellisys.2017.8324260 · Cited by 4
Balmau, O., Guerraoui, R., Kermarrec, A.-M., Maurer, A., Pavlovič, M., & Willy Zwaenepoel, Y. (2019) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-31277-0_23 · Cited by 5
“Credulix shares similarities with reputation systems [30], in creating profiles for users (UCRs in Credulix ) and in assuming that the future behavior of users will be similar to their past behavior.”
BackgroundReputations in mixed-role markets: A theory and an experimental test
Kas, J., Corten, R., & van de Rijt, A. (2019) · Social Science Research · doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2019.102366 · Cited by 4
Volunteer reputation determination in crowdsourcing projects using latent class analysis
Moreri, K. (2020) · Transactions in GIS · doi:10.1111/tgis.12713 · Cited by 4
“These are credibility (Keßler, Trame, & Kauppinen, 2011), trustworthiness (Flanagin & Metzger, 2008), local knowledge, experience (van Exel et al., 2010), recognition, and reputation (Resnick, Kuwabara, Zeckhauser, & Friedman, 2000).”
BGP Neighbor Trust Establishment Mechanism Based on the Bargaining Game
Li, P., Bin, L., & Li, D. (2021) · Information · doi:10.3390/info12030110 · Cited by 4
The platform belongs to those who work on it! Co-designing worker-centric task distribution models
Rozas, D., Saldivar, J., & Zelickson, E. (2021) · International Symposium on Open Collaboration · doi:10.1145/3479986.3479987 · Cited by 4
“…show us that it is possible to envision more cooperative models to distribute work, in which the producers progressively become owners of the means of production and the fruits of their labour expressions of self-realisation [21] and, as a result, platforms might belong to those who work on them .”
BackgroundAccountability in Computing: Concepts and Mechanisms
Feigenbaum, J., Jaggard, A. D., & Wright, R. N. (2020) · Foundations and Trends® in Privacy and Security · doi:10.1561/3300000002 · Cited by 4
Market Dynamics and Regulation of a Crowd-Sourced AI Marketplace
Dhamange, P., Soni, S., Sridhar, V., et al. (2022) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2022.3171254 · Cited by 4
“Though trust and reputation systems practised in digital mar-ketplaces have evolved significantly, they are still far from perfect [15], [23].”
BackgroundInfluentialA robust reputation iterative algorithm based on Z-statistics in a rating system with thorny objects
Zhu, H., Xiao, Y., Wang, Z., et al. (2022) · Journal of the Operational Research Society · doi:10.1080/01605682.2022.2101952 · Cited by 4
A Reputation Ranking Method based on Rating Patterns and Rating Deviation
Zhou, J., Liu, Y., & Sun, H. (2022) · International Conference on Data Science and Information Technology (DSIT) · doi:10.1109/dsit55514.2022.9943923 · Cited by 4
“An advanced algorithm often takes sufficient time, which seriously affects the development of online rating system [13], [14].”
BackgroundOn Trust, Blockchain, and Reputation Systems
Rodrigues, B., Franco, M. F., Killer, C., Scheid, E. J., & Stiller, B. (2022) · Springer optimization and its applications · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-07535-3_9 · Cited by 6
Ranfagni, S., & Rosati, M. (2023) · Emerald Group Publishing Limited eBooks · doi:10.1108/978-1-80382-375-120231012 · Cited by 4
Prevention of Multiple Coordinated Jellyfish Attacks in Mobile Ad Hoc Networks
Azer, M. A., & Saad, N. G. E.-D. (2015) · International Journal of Computer Applications · doi:10.5120/21342-4354 · Cited by 4
Understanding the Motivations of Consumer Knowledge Sharing in Online Community
Shek, S. P. W., & Sia, C. L. (2008) · Journal of the Association for Information Systems · Cited by 4
Integrating online social networks for enhancing reputation systems of e-commerce
Fang, X., Zhan, J., Koceja, N., et al. (2011) · doi:10.1109/isi.2011.5984119 · Cited by 4
TIME-DECAY-BASED REPUTATION METHOD FOR BUYERS MAKING DECISIONS IN ONLINE SHOPPING
Mu, P., & Chang, M. (2009) · Journal of the Association for Information Systems · Cited by 4
Rothschild, P. C. (2014) · Journal of the Music and Entertainment Industry Educators Association · doi:10.25101/14.9 · Cited by 3
Bouchagiar, G. (2018) · Journal of Financial Risk Management · doi:10.4236/jfrm.2018.74022 · Cited by 4
Li, W., Meng, W., & Kwok, L. F. (2019) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-34339-2_26 · Cited by 4
Albanese, M. (2013) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-03889-6_28 · Cited by 4
P2P Reputation Management Through Social Networking
Despotovic, Z. (2009) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-0-387-09751-0_25 · Cited by 4
Managing attention in the social web: the AtGentNet approach
Nabeth, T., & Maisonneuve, N. (2011) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511974519.012 · Cited by 4
Human-Machine Trust Interaction
Liu, C. (2010) · International Journal of Dependable and Trustworthy Information Systems · doi:10.4018/jdtis.2010100104 · Cited by 4
Personalisierung von Management-und Stakeholder-Informations-Systemen
Meier, M., Stößlein, M., & Mertens, P. (2001) · Physica-Verlag eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-57547-1_22 · Cited by 4
Micro Workflow Gestural Analysis: Representation in Social Business Processes
Jennings, B., & Finkelstein, A. (2010) · Lecture notes in business information processing · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-12186-9_26 · Cited by 4
“From this basis the subsequent subsections will identify the notions and differentiation between passive and active gestures rather than a single source style aggregation of a distributed voting system [31].”
BackgroundTrust 2.0: Who to believe in the flood of online data?
Tavakolifard, M., & Almeroth, K. C. (2012) · 2012 International Conference on Computing, Networking and Communications (ICNC) · doi:10.1109/iccnc.2012.6167482 · Cited by 4
“We briefly describe some of our relevant work in Section V and present future directions in Section VI. Finally, Section VII offers concluding remarks.”
BackgroundMobile Music Distribution: A Multichannel Approach
Furini, M. (2011) · Advances in Multimedia · doi:10.1155/2011/706164 · Cited by 4
“, [24–26]), and payment mechanisms, where a fee is given back in return for service (e.”
BackgroundReputation model in communities of practice: A case study
Cruz, C. C. P., da Motta, C. L. R., Santoro, F. M., et al. (2008) · International Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work in Design (CSCWD) · doi:10.1109/cscwd.2008.4537077 · Cited by 4
“Reputation Systems represent an alternative to help users themselves to create reliable relationships over the Internet [7] [8] [9], allowing them to evaluate the individualsáctions, observe reputations based on community opinion and create their trust networks.”
BackgroundFactors Contributing to the Final Selling Price of Auctioned Gift Cards
Dulaney, E. A., & Wiese, M. D. (2011) · Journal of Internet Commerce · doi:10.1080/15332861.2011.596005 · Cited by 4
“While feedback is left on over half the transactions, it is only negative 0.3% of the time (Resnick et al. 2000).”
BackgroundInfluentialTwo-Level Trust Model Based on Mutual Trust in Peer-to-Peer Networks
Jin, Y., Gu, Z., Gu, J., et al. (2010) · Journal of Software · doi:10.3724/sp.j.1001.2009.03284 · Cited by 4
Kaushik, S., Winsborough, W. H., Wijesekera, D., et al. (2005) · doi:10.1145/1103576.1103586 · Cited by 4
Forming Social Networks of Trust to Incentivize Cooperation
Allen, S. M., Colombo, G. B., & Whitaker, R. M. (2009) · Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS) · doi:10.1109/hicss.2009.221 · Cited by 4
Yang, X., Qu, X., & Gui, C. (2006) · doi:10.1109/dasc.2006.48 · Cited by 4
Asymptotically Idempotent Aggregation Operators for Trust Management in Multi-agent Systems
Ricci, R., & Viviani, M. (2008) · Cited by 4
User cooperation trust model and its application in network security management
Liu, W., Ren, P., Liu, K., & Duan, H. (2011) · International Conference on Fuzzy Systems and Knowledge Discovery (FSKD) · doi:10.1109/fskd.2011.6019988 · Cited by 4
A Two Phases Reputation－Based Model for Selecting Trusted Partners
Chen, L.-H., & Lin, W.-T. (2009) · Contemporary Management Research · doi:10.7903/cmr.1129 · Cited by 4
Extracting Value from P2P Content Delivery
Ege, R. K., Yang, L., & Whittaker, R. (2009) · International Conference on Systems · doi:10.1109/icons.2009.35 · Cited by 4
“Trust can be built by either a trusted third party [1] or by community-based feedback from past experiences [9] in a self-regulating system.”
BackgroundAltman, A. (2005) · DROPS (Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz Center for Informatics) · doi:10.4230/dagsemproc.05011.18 · Cited by 4
Estimation of trustworthiness for P2P systems in a collusive attack
Sato, F. (2008) · International Journal of Web and Grid Services · doi:10.1504/ijwgs.2008.018491 · Cited by 4
Computing equilibria in discounted dynamic games
Burkov, A., & Chaib-draa, B. (2015) · Applied Mathematics and Computation · doi:10.1016/j.amc.2015.07.068 · Cited by 4
A Data Driven Approach to Uncover Deficiencies in Online Reputation Systems
Xie, H. L., & Lui, J. C. S. (2015) · Proceedings · doi:10.1109/icdm.2015.30 · Cited by 4
“To overcome such risk, Internet service companies deploy reputation systems [15].”
BackgroundEnhancements to reputation based trust models for improved reliability in grid computing
Srivaramangai, P., & Srinivasan, R. (2011) · WSEAS Transactions on Computers archive · Cited by 4
Exploitation in Human Computation Systems
Caverlee, J. (2013) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-8806-4_68 · Cited by 4
User’s Understanding of Reputation Issues in a Community Based Mobile App
Afonso, O. P., Salgado, L. C. D. C., & Viterbo, J. (2016) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-39910-2_9 · Cited by 4
EcoPath: Adding Spatial, Social, and Gaming Contexts to Personal Tracking Systems
Ross, J., Amse, N., Beckman, R. A., & Tomlinson, B. (2010) · Cited by 4
Worker-Centric Design for Software Crowdsourcing: Towards Cloud Careers
Murray-Rust, D., Šćekić, O., & Lin, D. (2015) · Progress in IS · doi:10.1007/978-3-662-47011-4_3 · Cited by 4
Computationally modelling trust: An exploration
Masthoff, J. (2007) · Cited by 5
The effect of online reputation systems on intergroup inequality
Kas, J. (2021) · Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics · doi:10.1016/j.socec.2021.101800 · Cited by 3
Supporting Web-based collaboration between virtual enterprise partners
Bright, D., & Quirchmayr, G. (2004) · Proceedings - International Workshop on Database and Expert Systems Applications/Proceedings · doi:10.1109/dexa.2004.1333612 · Cited by 4
“This could be managed using web feedback forms and is similar to approaches adopted by online companies like e-bay [30] which uses similar user provided trust statistics to keep track of the number of satisfied customers for a seller on an online auction site.”
MethodFuzzy Approaches to Trust Management
Chang, E., Damiani, E., & Dillon, T. S. (2006) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/3-540-34783-6_43 · Cited by 4
“P2P reputation models allow the expression and reasoning about putting trust in a peer based on its past behavior [24].”
BackgroundBeyond User Ranking: Expanding the Definition of Reputation in Grid Computing
Elnaffar, S. (2007) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-6264-3_66 · Cited by 4
Towards Truthful Feedback in P2P Data Structures
Buchmann, E., Böhm, K., & von der Weth, C. (2006) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/11914853_30 · Cited by 4
“Thus, reputation systems [1] to identify and penalize misbehaving peers are crucial building blocks of all kinds of P2P systems.”
BackgroundDesigning for acceptance: Exchange design for electronic intermediaries
Fielt, E. (2006) · Research Repository (Delft University of Technology) · doi:10.13140/2.1.5034.3200 · Cited by 4
Preventing Privacy-Invasive Software Using Collaborative Reputation Systems
Boldt, M., Carlsson, B., Larsson, T. C., et al. (2007) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-540-75248-6_10 · Cited by 4
The Use of Incentive Mechanisms in Multi-Channel Mobile Music Distribution
Furini, M., & Montangero, M. (2006) · International Conference on Automated Production of Cross Media Content for Multi-Channel Distribution · doi:10.1109/axmedis.2006.54 · Cited by 4
“In this section we evaluate our multi-channel mobile distribution proposal, analyzing the point of view of all the entities involved in the music distribution: Wireless Music Store, cellphone network operators and customers,.”
MethodResource allocation via competing marketplaces
Robinson, E. (2011) · University of Birmingham Institutional Research Archive (University of Birmingham) · Cited by 4
Architecting trust-enabled peer-to-peer file-sharing applications
Suryanarayana, G., Diallo, M. H., Erenkrantz, J. R., & Taylor, R. N. (2006) · XRDS Crossroads The ACM Magazine for Students · doi:10.1145/1144359.1144364 · Cited by 4
Modelling trust recognition and evaluation in an electronic environment
Mahmood, O. (2008) · International Journal of Networking and Virtual Organisations · doi:10.1504/ijnvo.2008.018827 · Cited by 4
“The following problems associated with online feedback and online reputation systems have been highlighted by Resnick et al. (2000): • Generally people do not bother to provide feedback.”
BackgroundAdaptive trust modeling in multi-agent systems: utilizing experience and reputation
Barber, K. S., & Fullam, K. K. (2007) · Texas ScholarWorks (Texas Digital Library) · Cited by 4
A Network Value Model and its Application to Technology Evaluation for the On-line Community
Yoshikai, N. (2005) · Asia-Pacific Symposium on Information and Telecommunication Technologies · doi:10.1109/apsitt.2005.203692 · Cited by 4
Competition, regulation and growth in a digitized world
Nicoletti, G., Vitale, C., & Abate, C. (2023) · OECD Economics Department working papers · doi:10.1787/1b143a37-en · Cited by 16
Reputation Failure: The Limits of Market Discipline in Consumer MarketsPreprint
Arbel, Y. A. (2018) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.3239995 · Cited by 4
Perceptions of Trust Between Online Auction Consumers
Malinen, S., & Ojala, J. (2012) · Web Portal Design, Implementation, Integration, and Optimization · doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-2779-6.ch015 · Cited by 3
Trust in online auction towards explaining the use intention
Lin, C.-Y., Tu, C.-C., & Fang, K. (2009) · Portland International Conference on Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET) · doi:10.1109/picmet.2009.5261947 · Cited by 3
“Nevertheless, with the astonishingly high possibility of large scale fraud and deceit, eBay still get the high rate of successful transactions since its reputation system [18].”
BackgroundBGET: A Blockchain-Based Grouping-EigenTrust Reputation Management Approach for P2P Networks
Peng, Y., Huang, J., Zhou, S., et al. (2024) · Lecture notes of the Institute for Computer Sciences, Social Informatics and Telecommunications Engineering · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-54521-4_13 · Cited by 3
Peer cluster: a maximum flow‐based trust mechanism in P2P file sharing networks
Fan, X., Li, M., Zhao, H., et al. (2013) · Security and Communication Networks · doi:10.1002/sec.682 · Cited by 3
Simple peer selection strategies for fast and fair peer-to-peer file sharing
Hu, C., Chang, Y., Chen, D.-Y., et al. (2010) · International Conference on Advanced Communication Technology · Cited by 3
Research Challenges in Managing and Using Service Level Agreements
RANA, O. F., & Ziegler, W. H. (2010) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-6794-7_15 · Cited by 3
Pan, M., Li, M., & Yu, Y. (2013) · Concurrency and Computation Practice and Experience · doi:10.1002/cpe.2986 · Cited by 3
“Experimental evaluations were simulated on various reputation systems [21, 22].”
MethodEnergy consumption analysis of reputation-based trust management schemes of wireless sensor networks
Shaikh, R. A., Lee, Y.-K., & Lee, S. (2009) · International Conference on Ubiquitous Information Management and Communication (IMCOM) · doi:10.1145/1516241.1516346 · Cited by 3
A New P2P Identity Authentication Method Based on Zero-Knowledge Under Hybrid P2P Network
Pang, X., Wang, C., & Zhang, Y. (2013) · TELKOMNIKA Indonesian Journal of Electrical Engineering · doi:10.11591/telkomnika.v11i10.2943 · Cited by 3
Towards a global online reputation
Li, H., Benyoucef, M., & von Bochmann, G. (2009) · International Conference on Management of Emergent Digital EcoSystems (MEDES) · doi:10.1145/1643823.1643893 · Cited by 3
“Categories and Subject Descriptors C.2.0 [Computer-Communication Networks]: Security and Protection; H.3.5 [Online Information Services]: Web-based services.”
BackgroundInfluentialExtrinsic versus Intrinsic Motivations on Electronic Auction
Lin, C.-Y., Tu, C.-C., & Fang, K. (2008) · International Conference on Advanced Communication Technology · doi:10.1109/icact.2008.4494179 · Cited by 3
Elections and Reputation for High Dependability and Performance in Distributed Workload Execution
Costa, R. L. D. C., & Furtado, P. (2014) · IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems · doi:10.1109/tpds.2014.2340864 · Cited by 3
“The system uses historical information about services’ past behavior (i.e. services’ reputation [29]) to build an expectation on their dependability degree and performance.”
BackgroundImplicit user credibility extraction for reputation rating mechanism in B2C e-commerce
Cho, J., Kwon, K., & Park, Y. (2007) · International Journal of Intelligent Information and Database Systems · doi:10.1504/ijiids.2007.016679 · Cited by 3
“The basic concept of reputation systems is to let users rate each other after the completion of a transaction, and use the aggregated ratings to derive reputation scores, which can assist other users in decision-making in the future (Jøsang et al., 2007; Resnick et al., 2000).”
BackgroundA Social-Feedback Enriched Interface for Software Download
Dini, G., Foglia, P., Prete, C. A., & Zanda, M. (2000) · Journal of Organizational and End User Computing · doi:10.4018/joeuc.2013010102 · Cited by 3
“…that predictability cannot be fully ensured with the above approaches, in recent years Reputation Systems (RS) have emerged as a method for fostering trust amongst strangers cooperating online by gathering, distributing, and aggregating the feedback of previous consumers [Resnick et al., 2000].”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialA Multilevel Trust Management Framework
Chong, S.-K., Abawajy, J., & Dew, R. A. (2007) · IEEE/ACIS International Conference on Computer and Information Science (ICIS) · doi:10.1109/icis.2007.30 · Cited by 3
“Trust management systems compute the trust value of an entity, relying on feedback data received from participating parties [7].”
BackgroundFeedback Credibility Issues In Trust Management Systems
Chong, S.-K., & Abawajy, J. (2007) · International Conference on Multimedia and Ubiquitous Engineering (MUE) · doi:10.1109/mue.2007.130 · Cited by 3
“A trust management system relies on the feedbacks provides by the e-commerce participants about the transaction to evaluate users’ trust worthiness [10].”
Background
Metadata
- Authors
- Resnick, P., Kuwabara, K., Zeckhauser, R., & Friedman, E.
- Affiliations
- University of Michigan (US)
- Harvard University (US)
- Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey (US)
- Venue
- Communications of the ACM
- Published
- 2000-12
- Volume
- 43
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 45-48
- ISSN
- 0001-0782 (ISSN-L)
- 1557-7317
- OpenAlex
- W2337430557
- Cited by
- 2,190
- References
- 7
- Citations by year
- 2026: 38 · 2025: 32 · 2024: 37 · 2023: 33 · 2022: 36 · 2021: 52 · 2020: 58 · 2019: 66 · 2018: 66 · 2017: 87 · 2016: 87 · 2015: 93 · 2014: 110 · 2013: 111 · 2012: 134
- FWCI
- 145.25
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Communications of the ACM (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation (9977999)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Access Control and Trust
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Expert finding and Q&A systems
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Privacy, Security, and Data Protection
- Keywords
- reputation systems, online trust, online interaction, e-commerce, peer reputation
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-11, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-11 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
