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 1,501–1,600 of 2,164
Reputation Service and Reputation Based Access Control
Su, L., Wang, W., & Niu, A. (2010) · doi:10.1109/iceee.2010.5661010 · Cited by 2
Peng, C.-C., & Liu, D. (2010) · doi:10.1145/2389376.2389379 · Cited by 2
“With the rapid growth of bloggers and blog articles, the vast amount of information brings the phenomenon of information overload.”
BackgroundRobust Reputation Management Using Probabilistic Message Passing
Ayday, E., & Fekri, F. (2011) · IEEE Global Telecommunications Conference (GLOBECOM) · doi:10.1109/glocom.2011.6133861 · Cited by 2
A Transaction Management Mechanism for Building Trust in Mobile Commerce
Hu, R., Yang, D., & Qi, R. (2009) · International Conference on Management of e-Commerce and e-Government · doi:10.1109/icmecg.2009.65 · Cited by 2
Rating Fraud Detection---Towards Designing a Trustworthy Reputation Systems
Cai, Y., & Zhu, D. (2015) · International Conference on Information Systems · Cited by 2
van Eijck, J. (2015) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-662-48540-8_9 · Cited by 2
“For further general information on reputation systems, consult Resnick [44].”
BackgroundPraemia Virtutis Honores? The Making of Global Reputations and the False Promise of Meritocracy
Nath, S. (2019) · Emerald Group Publishing Limited eBooks · doi:10.1108/s1064-485720190000018008 · Cited by 2
Trust and Reputation in Historical Markets and Contemporary Online Markets
Diekmann, A., & Przepiorka, W. (2021) · Handbooks of sociology and social research · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-61619-9_9 · Cited by 2
Identifying Risky Vendors in Cryptocurrency P2P Marketplaces
Tsuchiya, T., Cuevas, A., & Christin, N. (2024) · International World Wide Web Conference (WWW) · doi:10.1145/3589334.3645475 · Cited by 8
“Most exchanges build a reputation system to advise users on vendor credibility [36].”
BackgroundLock‐In Effects in Online Labor Markets
Ciotti, F., Hornuf, L., & Stenzhorn, E. (2024) · Journal of Economics & Management Strategy · doi:10.1111/jems.12612 · Cited by 23
Kasana, S., Sharma, M., & Gupta, S. (2024) · Advances in information security, privacy, and ethics book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3693-6859-6.ch009 · Cited by 2
Ho, M.-X., & YANAGISAWA, H. (2025) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2025.144811 · Cited by 3
A trust-aware and cost-optimized blockchain oracle selection model with deep reinforcement learning
Zhang, H. C., Li, S., Bao, H., Cao, Y., & Li, J. (2026) · Future Generation Computer Systems · doi:10.1016/j.future.2026.108489 · Cited by 5
Electronic Commerce: Themes, Concepts and Relationships
Yu, K., McLee, Y., & Lee, Y.-D. (2008) · doi:10.29430/ijcse.200811.0081 · Cited by 2
Kremer-Davidson, S., Ronen, I., Kaplan, A., et al. (2017) · ACM Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation and Personalization (UMAP) · doi:10.1145/3079628.3079664 · Cited by 2
Dynamic Security Monitoring and Accounting for Virtualized Environments
Muñoz, A., Harjani, R., Maña, A., & Díaz, R. (2011) · Communications in computer and information science · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-22365-5_22 · Cited by 2
Safeguarding against new privacy threats in inter-enterprise collaboration environments
Moen, P., Ruohomaa, S., Viljanen, L., et al. (2010) · Työväentutkimus Vuosikirja · Cited by 2
Trustworthiness in Computer-Mediated Transactions: A Content Analysis of Trustor Feedback
Pardue, J. H., Landry, J. P., & Shaw, C. E. (2007) · Journal of the Association for Information Systems · Cited by 2
Trust Management and Accountability for Internet Security.
Liu, W. W. (2011) · ProQuest LLC eBooks · Cited by 2
Mining online auction social networks for reputation and recommendation
Morzy, M., Wierzbicki, A., & Papadopoulos, A. N. (2009) · Control and Cybernetics · Cited by 2
Consistent Continuous Trust-Based Recommendation Systems
Rozenfeld, O., & Tennenholtz, M. (2009) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-10841-9_12 · Cited by 2
Reputation Systems of Online Communities Establishing a Research Agenda
Spring, S., & Zheng, W. (2008) · Journal of the Association for Information Systems · Cited by 2
Multicriteria Subjective Reputation Management Model
Majdan, M., & Ogryczak, W. (2010) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-13529-3_72 · Cited by 2
A Secure Routing Protocol SDSR for Mobile Ad Hoc Networks
Chuanhe, H., Jiangwei, L., & Xiaohua, J. (2005) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/11599463_27 · Cited by 2
Preservation of Privacy in Thwarting the Ballot Stuffing Scheme
Brandi, W., Olivier, M. S., & Zugenmaier, A. (2008) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-540-85735-8_19 · Cited by 2
The Role of Trust in the Intention to Use Feedback from Reputation Systems
Vannoy, S. A., Nath, A. K., & Iyer, L. (2008) · Journal of the Association for Information Systems · Cited by 2
Building Trust and Security in Peer-to-Peer Systems
Bearly, T., & Kumar, V. (2007) · Advances in information security · doi:10.1007/978-0-387-27696-0_8 · Cited by 2
The Application of Collaborative Filtering for Trust Management in P2P Communities
Zuo, M., Wang, K., & Li, J. (2005) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/11576235_41 · Cited by 2
BLUE: A REPUTATION-BASED MULTI-AGENT SYSTEM TO SUPPORT C2C IN P2P BLUETOOTH NETWORKS
Lax, G., & Sarnè, G. M. L. (2006) · International Conference on e-Business · doi:10.5220/0001426300970104 · Cited by 2
A Proposal for Recognizing Reputation within Communities of Practice
Cruz, C. C. P., Gouvêa, M. T. A., da Motta, C. L. R., et al. (2008) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-540-92719-8_40 · Cited by 2
“Reputation Systems represent an alternative to help users themselves create reliable relationships in the Internet [15], allowing them to evaluate the individuals ́ actions, view reputations based on community opinion and create their trust networks.”
BackgroundOn the Profitability of Incompetence
Staab, E., & Caminada, M. W. A. (2011) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-18345-4_6 · Cited by 2
CRank: A Credit Assessment Model in C2C e-Commerce
Zhang, Z., Xie, X., Pan, H., et al. (2010) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-7355-9_28 · Cited by 2
“, when agents expect a particular agent to do something) is created through repeated interaction and the possibility of “punishing” off-equilibrium actions [15–17].”
BackgroundWhen Spiders Bite: The Use, Misuse, and Unintended Consequences of “Silent Information”
Keenan, T. P. (2009) · IFIP advances in information and communication technology · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-03315-5_6 · Cited by 2
Semtrust: A semantic reputation system in P2P-based Semantic Web
Wei, W., Guosun, Z., & Yuan, L. (2006) · Wuhan University Journal of Natural Sciences · doi:10.1007/bf02829224 · Cited by 2
Zhang, B., Xiang, Y., Wang, P., et al. (2011) · Computer Science and Information Systems · doi:10.2298/csis110225049z · Cited by 2
“There have been a large number of research efforts on belief and reputation in the past decades [31-35].”
BackgroundFeedback as "Shadow of the Present": An Alternative to Reputation Systems for E-marketplaces
Li, Q., Zhang, J., & Martin, K. M. (2012) · IEEE International Conference on Trust, Security and Privacy in Computing and Communications (TrustCom) · doi:10.1109/trustcom.2012.160 · Cited by 2
“Reputation in this situation acts as a “shadow of the future” [10] to induce good conduct from sellers when they carry out transactions, even with unfamiliar buyers.”
BackgroundA Hybrid Trust and Trade Service for Mobile Collaborative Computing
Cruz, N., & Miranda, H. (2013) · doi:10.1109/ngmast.2013.10 · Cited by 2
“To solve this issue, an unchangeable ID could be assigned for example by a trusted third party that uses some off-line mechanism to enforce that each user does not acquire more than one pseudonym [9].”
BackgroundTowards a framework for cyber social status based trusted open collaboration
Park, J.-H., Cheng, Y. H., & Sandhu, R. S. (2010) · International Conference on Collaborative Computing: Networking, Applications and Worksharing (CollaborateCom) · doi:10.4108/icst.trustcol.2010.2 · Cited by 2
“In open source collaboration, developed source code is discussed and evaluated publicly and available for reference to the community.”
BackgroundRelay recommendation system (RRS) and selective anonymity for tor
Li, C., Xue, Y., Dong, Y., & Wang, D. (2012) · Globecom · doi:10.1109/glocom.2012.6503216 · Cited by 2
A Research Model for Trustworthy Pervasive Social Networking
Yan, Z., Zhang, P., Niemi, V., et al. (2013) · IEEE International Conference on Trust, Security and Privacy in Computing and Communications (TrustCom) · doi:10.1109/trustcom.2013.186 · Cited by 2
On the development of an Agent Supported e-Manufacturing environment
Giret, A., & Botti, V. J. (2009) · IEEE Conference on Emerging Technologies & Factory Automation (ETFA) · doi:10.1109/etfa.2009.5347188 · Cited by 2
“It maintains the degree of trust [10] associated with the CSA agents that are users of the e-Manufacturing environment in order to provide useful information on the status of the collaboration to the participants (e.”
BackgroundTowards a UML Extension of Reusable Secure Use Cases for Mobile Grid Systems
Rosado, D. G., Fernández‐Medina, E., & López, J. (2011) · IEICE Transactions on Information and Systems · doi:10.1587/transinf.e94.d.243 · Cited by 2
Askay, D. A. (2011) · iConference · doi:10.1145/1940761.1940820 · Cited by 2
“Reviews are entered into an online feedback system, which collects, aggregates, and displays evaluations about a member, service, or product to help viewers decide whom to trust or the quality of a product or service [5].”
BackgroundEvaluation Mechanism for Web Service Based on Semantics and Reputation
Zhang, B., Xiang, Y., & Xu, Q. (2010) · doi:10.1109/wicom.2010.5600167 · Cited by 2
“And the literature on theory and applications of reputation systems are growing rapidly [17].”
BackgroundOntology-Based Product's Reputation Model
Abdel‐Hafez, A., & Xu, Y. (2013) · IEEE/WIC/ACM International Joint Conferences on Web Intelligence and Intelligent Agent Technologies (WI-IAT) · doi:10.1109/wi-iat.2013.146 · Cited by 2
“Reputation systems provide methods for collecting and aggregating users’ ratings to calculate the ove r-all reputation for products, users, or services [1].”
MethodTrustworthiness monitoring of dynamic service compositions
Elshaafi, H., McGibney, J., & Botvich, D. (2011) · doi:10.1145/2031325.2031329 · Cited by 2
Anane, R., Marrocco, S., & Bordbar, B. (2009) · doi:10.1109/csa.2009.5404307 · Cited by 2
“Trust-based systems rely on a formula that combines trust and reputation factors, assign trust levels according to past behaviour and constrain the level of interaction according to threshold values.”
BackgroundIs an apology enough? How to resolve trust breakdowns in episodic online interactions
Vasalou, A., Hopfensitz, A., & Pitt, J. V. (2007) · Electronic workshops in computing · doi:10.14236/ewic/hci2007.76 · Cited by 2
Short movie materials based on tessellation for foreign vocabulary learning
Takigiku, Y., Kaneko, K., Ishikawa, M., et al. (2010) · International Conference on Information Technology Based Higher Education and Training (ITHET) · doi:10.1109/ithet.2010.5480088 · Cited by 2
“However, it is necessary to establish reliance from the users by protecting the learning materials and the tests from illegal assessment in SIGMA, which is an open and sharing system [12].”
BackgroundEldred, M. (2013) · The International Review of Information Ethics · doi:10.29173/irie333 · Cited by 2
Service Authenticity in P2P File-Sharing
Deng, L., He, Y., & Xu, Z. (2008) · doi:10.1109/icycs.2008.132 · Cited by 2
“By making the reputation values publicly available, users are able to make informed decisions about whom to trust, encouraging reciprocal behavior, and deterring dishonest participation[7].”
BackgroundEstimation of Trustworthiness for P2P System in Collusive Attack
Sato, F. (2007) · ... International Conference on Complex, Intelligent and Software Intensive Systems · doi:10.1109/cisis.2007.23 · Cited by 2
Combining data trust in reputation systems to boost P2P security
Chen, J., Xu, X., & Bruda, S. D. (2010) · International Conference on Future Computer and Communication · doi:10.1109/icfcc.2010.5497669 · Cited by 2
A novel feedback based fast adaptive trust model for P2P networks
Das, A., & Islam, M. M. (2010) · doi:10.1109/lcn.2010.5735772 · Cited by 2
“Several remedies have been suggested for the incentive problem of reputation systems in [17].”
BackgroundWinkelmann, A., & Haselmann, T. (2010) · MKWI · Cited by 2
Distributed pairing for file sharing in large-scale peer-to-peer networks
Hu, C., & Chen, D.-Y. (2011) · International Conference on Advanced Communication Technology · Cited by 2
A Reputation-Based Approach for Countering Vulnerabilities in P2P Networks
Chen, J., Lu, H., & Bruda, S. D. (2010) · doi:10.1109/ebiss.2010.5473399 · Cited by 2
“Some literatures classify the most common forms of attacks on reputation systems and give some solutions against the attacks [6].”
BackgroundDifferent secured routing protocols for mobile Ad Hoc networks and its vulnerabilities: A review
Majumdar, A., & Banerjee, S. (2015) · doi:10.1109/iemcon.2015.7344453 · Cited by 2
Incentive-based Cyber Trust - A Call to Action
Thomas, R. C., & Amon, P. D. (2007) · Cited by 2
Probabilistic Byzantine Tolerance for Cloud Computing
Arantes, L., Friedman, R., Marin, O., & Sens, P. (2015) · IEEE Symposium on Reliable Distributed Systems (SRDS) · doi:10.1109/srds.2015.22 · Cited by 2
“First, our model allows for various compute nodes to have different levels of reliability (reputation [25], [26]).”
MethodReputation for Inter-Domain QoS Routing
Anceaume, E., Busnel, Y., Lajoie-Mazenc, P., et al. (2015) · IEEE International Symposium on Network Computing and Applications (NCA) · doi:10.1109/nca.2015.19 · Cited by 2
“Reputation mechanisms have proven to be useful in multiple contexts, including electronic commerce applications [18].”
Reciprocity and Prejudice: An Experiment of Hindu-Muslim Cooperation in the Slums of Mumbai
Tusicisny, A. (2013) · doi:10.7916/d88p5ztn · Cited by 2
“However, much of the modern world relies on anonymous transactions with people we do not know: customers buy goods from complete strangers at eBay (Resnick et al. 2000), political parties buy votes despite their essential inability to monitor the secret ballot (Brusco et al. 2004), and even…”
BackgroundMDAC: A new reputation system for misbehavior detection and control in ad hoc networks
Azer, M. A., & Saad, N. G. E.-D. (2015) · International Computer Science and Engineering Conference · doi:10.1109/icsec.2015.7401446 · Cited by 2
MODELING TRUST IN SOCIAL NETWORK
Ntwiga, D. B., Weke, P. G. O., Manene, M. M., et al. (2016) · International Journal of Mathematical Archive · Cited by 2
The Followee Recommendation Algorithm Based on Microblog User Interest and Characteristic
Wang, R. (2014) · Journal of Information and Computational Science · doi:10.12733/jics20103135 · Cited by 2
Toward the Implementation of Relevance and Reputation Indicators in Edu-AREA
Rodríguez, M. C., Rodríguez-Bermúdez, M., Nistal, M. L., & Santos-Gago, J. M. (2016) · IEEE Revista Iberoamericana de Tecnologias del Aprendizaje · doi:10.1109/rita.2016.2554039 · Cited by 2
“In the electronic commerce domain, reputation systems are defined as systems that collect, distribute and add information about the past behavior of participants [9], [10].”
BackgroundMedTrust: Towards trust-assured social networking for healthcare
Li, J., Zanman, N., & Bai, Y. Z. (2015) · International Conference on e-Health Networking, Applications and Services · doi:10.1109/healthcom.2015.7454531 · Cited by 2
Mining Social Theory to Build Member-Maintained Communities.
Cosley, D. (2005) · Cited by 2
Srikanth, M. (2013) · Cited by 2
Paradigm Shift in the Network Economy: From Security to Trust
Petrovic, O., Fallenböck, M., & Kittl, C. (2003) · Evolaris · doi:10.1007/978-3-7091-6088-6_2 · Cited by 2
Trust Management and User’s Trust Perception in e-Business
Costante, E., Petković, M., & den Hartog, J. (2012) · IGI Global eBooks · doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-0146-8.ch015 · Cited by 2
Kerkiri, T., & Konetas, D. (2011) · IGI Global eBooks · doi:10.4018/978-1-61520-921-7.ch012 · Cited by 2
Multilayer Control System Framework for Cyber-Physical Systems
Manfredi, S. (2016) · Advances in industrial control · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-41646-5_1 · Cited by 2
Seminar Paper on Strategies to Achieve Market Leadership: The Example of Amazon
Viii, F., & Mirow, M. (2005) · Cited by 2
Jung, C., & Namn, S.-H. (2010) · Management & Information Systems Review · doi:10.29214/damis.2010.29.4.004 · Cited by 2
A fine grained evaluation and mining of E-commerce feedback comments
Joseph, B., & Beegom, A. S. A. (2017) · International Conference on Circuit, Power and Computing Technologies · doi:10.1109/iccpct.2017.8074242 · Cited by 2
Trust-Aware Recommendation for E-Commerce Associated with Social Networks
Liang, W., Zhou, X., Huang, S., et al. (2017) · IEEE Conference on Service-Oriented Computing and Applications (SOCA) · doi:10.1109/soca.2017.36 · Cited by 2
“The possible reason for the lack of low ratings or negative feedback is that users who leave negative feedback ratings may get retaliatory negative ratings and damage their own reputation [1], even be harassed by the sellers and be obliged to change the original rating to a positive one as the sellers’ blackmail in so…”
BackgroundPsychology-Inspired Trust Restoration Framework in Distributed Multiagent Systems
Binmad, R., & Li, M. (2018) · Scientific Programming · doi:10.1155/2018/7515860 · Cited by 2
Interaction Dynamics in a Social Network Using Hidden Markov Model
Ntwiga, D. B., & Ogutu, C. A. (2018) · Social Networking · doi:10.4236/sn.2018.73012 · Cited by 2
An Efficient Critical Incident Propagation Model for Social Networks Based on Trust Factor
Li, X., Yuan, L., Liu, C., Yu, W., Xue, C., & Xu, G. (2018) · Lecture notes of the Institute for Computer Sciences, Social Informatics and Telecommunications Engineering · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-00916-8_39 · Cited by 2
An iterative method for evaluating product quality and user reputation
Liang, B., Jiang, S., Dou, L., et al. (2018) · Chinese Control Conference (CCC) · doi:10.23919/chicc.2018.8483030 · Cited by 2
Social Principles in Agent-Based Trust Management for the Internet of Things
Kravari, K., & Bassiliades, N. (2017) · International Symposium on Symbolic and Numeric Algorithms for Scientific Computing (SYNASC) · doi:10.1109/synasc.2017.00062 · Cited by 2
“Hence, reputation (trust) models help agents to decide who to trust, encouraging trustworthy behavior and deterring dishonest participation by providing the mean through which reputation and ultimately trust can be quantified [32][4].”
BackgroundData Controllability for Risk Management in Smart and Intelligent Systems
Munier, M., & Lalanne, V. (2020) · Journal of Internet Technology and Secured Transaction · doi:10.20533/jitst.2046.3723.2020.0080 · Cited by 2
Exploring women’s motivation factors to participate in spatial crowdsourcing platform
Mahmod, M., & Hassan, H. (2021) · AIP conference proceedings · doi:10.1063/5.0044474 · Cited by 2
Finding and fighting search engine spam
Wu, B. (2007) · Cited by 2
Trust Agreement in Wireless Mesh Networks
Noack, A. (2011) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-21040-2_24 · Cited by 2
“) [11], whereby the idea that is behind reputation management still remains untouched.”
Emotions and Norms in Shared Spaces
Santos, M. S., & Pitt, J. V. (2014) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-14220-3_9 · Cited by 2
C2C Model E-Commerce Credit Evaluation Model Based on Artificial Intelligence
Mu, W., & Ding, H. (2022) · Mobile Information Systems · doi:10.1155/2022/4820393 · Cited by 2
“+erefore, it is necessary to develop a suitable credit evaluation model [23] to help buyers find such sellers who want to obtain illegal profits [24].”
BackgroundEstimating Student Grades through Peer Assessment as a Crowdsourcing Calibration Problem
Xiao, Y., Gao, Y., Yue, C., & Gehringer, E. F. (2022) · International Conference on Information Technology Based Higher Education and Training (ITHET) · doi:10.1109/ithet56107.2022.10031993 · Cited by 4
“There are some prerequisites to set up one of these systems, one of which is that there needs to be a history of actions recorded and the entities participating in these interactions need to be active so that there will be a need to determine their trustworthiness for future actions [33], [35].”
BackgroundTrusted reputation system for heterogeneous network resource sharing based on blockchain in IoT
Li, J., Dai, M., Lü, Y., et al. (2024) · Wireless Networks · doi:10.1007/s11276-024-03825-y · Cited by 2
“[20] Discuss the theoretical and practical difficulties of reputation system and proved that reputation is important in Internet area.”
A non-transitive trust model for key distribution
Herald, S., Clarke, S., & Christianson, B. (2010) · University of Hertfordshire Research Archive (University of Hertfordshire) · Cited by 2
Using a Reputation Framework to Identify Community Leaders in Ontology Engineering
Debruyne, C., & Nijs, N. (2013) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-41030-7_49 · Cited by 2
“Based on [13,16,15,6], we define a reputation framework as follows: “a Reputation Framework is a general independent mediation system to facilitate trust and reputation within social platforms by rating the quality of the users’ contribution and use these ratings to calculate a user’s reputation score.”
BackgroundFrom Formal to Informal Learning: Scenario, Conditioning Elements and Evolutionary Steps
Leone, S. (2013) · Springer briefs in education · doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-6274-3_1 · Cited by 2
Accounting for Social, Spatial, and Textual Interconnections
Nissan, E. (2011) · Law, governance and technology series · doi:10.1007/978-90-481-8990-8_6 · Cited by 2
Combating Index Poisoning in P2P File Sharing
Deng, L., He, Y., & Xu, Z. (2009) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-02617-1_37 · Cited by 2
Shill‐bidding in private values auctions
Hlásny, V. (2007) · Journal of Information Communication and Ethics in Society · doi:10.1108/14779960710846164 · Cited by 2
“Bidders place a high value on seller’s reputation score, as the best signal of seller’s honesty (Resnick et al., 2000; Bajari and Hortacsu, 2002a; Keser, 2002; Brown and Morgan, 2006; Houser and Wooders, 2006).”
BackgroundA Framework for Managing Access of Large-Scale Distributed Resources in a Collaborative Platform
Su, C., Luo, T., Liu, W., et al. (2008) · Data Science Journal · doi:10.2481/dsj.7.137 · Cited by 2
The Credibility of Posted Information in a Recommender System Based on a Map
Yamamoto, K., Katagami, D., Nitta, K., et al. (2006) · Transactions of the Japanese Society for Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1527/tjsai.21.276 · Cited by 2
Reputation System User Classification Using a Hausdorff-Based Metric
Alboaie, L., & Barbu, T. (2008) · doi:10.1109/cimca.2008.155 · Cited by 2
“Keywords— trust and reputation system, local trust metric, global trust metric, feature vector, Hausdorff based metric, unsupervised classification.”
BackgroundGuimarães, S., Silva, A., Meira, W., et al. (2010) · IEEE/IFIP International Conference on Embedded and Ubiquitous Computing (EUC) · doi:10.1109/euc.2010.83 · Cited by 2
“The so called lack of information regarding services and suppliers is one of the main difficulties related to the credibility in online services [12], [3].”
BackgroundInfluential
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
