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 1,601–1,700 of 2,164
A Reputation Management System Model for E-Commerce Community
Dai, C., Yang, Y. P., & Luo, J. (2007) · International Conference on Wireless Communications, Networking and Mobile Computing · doi:10.1109/wicom.2007.894 · Cited by 2
Development and Challenges of Crowdsourcing Quality of Experience Evaluation for Multimedia
Wang, Z., Tao, D., & Liu, P. (2015) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-22047-5_36 · Cited by 2
The Moderating Effect of Legitimacy and Reputation on SMEs in a B2B Environment
Jia, G., Li, Y., Wang, K., et al. (2012) · doi:10.1109/cec.2012.17 · Cited by 2
Vardhan, M., & Kushwaha, D. S. (2017) · Tehnicki vjesnik - Technical Gazette · doi:10.17559/tv-20130507221245 · Cited by 2
Can Who-Edits-What Predict Edit Survival?
Yardim, A. B., Kristof, V., Maystre, L., & Grossglauser, M. (2018) · ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD) · doi:10.1145/3219819.3219979 · Cited by 4
On the Feasibility of Blockchain for Online Surveys with Reputation and Informed Consent Support
de Sousa, H. R., & Pinto, A. (2018) · Advances in intelligent systems and computing · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-01746-0_37 · Cited by 2
Reputation System for Fraud Detection in Nigerian Consumer-to-Consumer E-Commerce
Rasheed, L. O., & Olukemi, A. (2019) · Journal of Computer Science and Information Technology · doi:10.15640/jcsit.v7n2a6 · Cited by 2
“Consumer-to-consumer online businesses are more prone to fraudulent activities on the Internet compared to other forms of e-commerce, and as a result, there should be other relevant ways to relieve the risk of consumer-to-consumer e-commerce transactions (Resnick et al ., 2000).”
BackgroundHow Reputation Systems Change the Psychological Antecedents of Fairness in Virtual Environments
Collodi, S., Fiorenza, M. M., Guazzini, A., & Duradoni, M. (2020) · Future Internet · doi:10.3390/fi12080132 · Cited by 5
How to Design Trust on Market Platforms?
Greiner, B., Teubner, T., & Weinhardt, C. (2021) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-658-31118-6_3 · Cited by 2
Guo, W., Straub, D. W., Zhang, P., & Han, X. (2014) · Journal of the Association for Information Systems · Cited by 2
Blocking Privacy-Invasive Software Using a Specialized Reputation System
Larsson, T. C., & Lindén, N. (2007) · KTH Publication Database DiVA (KTH Royal Institute of Technology) · Cited by 2
Pavlou, P. A., & Dimoka, A. (2014) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.2380738 · Cited by 3
“To account for these uncertainties, online auction marketplaces, such as eBay, have instituted feedback technologies, which are IT systems that facilitate the collection and dissemination of information about seller past transaction behavior (Dellarocas 2003, Resnick et al. 2000).”
BackgroundTrust based ontology integration for the community services sector
Hooijmaijers, D., & Stumptner, M. (2006) · Cited by 2
Design von Reputationssystemen in Online- Auktionen - Eine vergleichende Marktanalyse
Riemer, K., & Korn, D. (2007) · Journal of the Association for Information Systems · Cited by 2
WikiRep: Digital Reputation in Virtual Communities
Sabel, M., Garg, A., & Battiti, R. (2005) · Unitn Eprints Research (Università Degli Studi di Trento) · Cited by 2
Assessing the Impact of Informedness on a Consultant's ProfitPreprint
Staab, E., & Caminada, M. W. A. (2009) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.0909.0901 · Cited by 2
“The scenario is basically defined by a set of clients, a set of consultants, and a finite number of rounds in each of which the clients seek advice from the consultants.”
BackgroundA Trust Management Scheme in Structured P2P Systems
Lee, S. Y., Kwon, O.-H., Kim, J., et al. (2006) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/11925941_3 · Cited by 2
“The feedbacks help participants decide whom to trust, encourage trustworthy behavior and deter dishonest people from participation [12].”
BackgroundMultiple Criteria Decision Making in Application Layer NetworksPreprint
Schneider, F. (2008) · RePEc: Research Papers in Economics · Cited by 2
Towards Trustworthy Resource Selection: A Fuzzy Reputation Aggregation Approach
Gui, C., Wu, Q., & Wang, H. (2007) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-540-73547-2_25 · Cited by 2
Trust, choice and online shopping
Ang, L., Dubelaar, C., & Lee, B.-C. (2002) · Research Online (University of Wollongong) · Cited by 2
Sécurisation des VANETS par la méthode de réputation des noeuds
Engoulou, R. G. (2013) · PolyPublie (École Polytechnique de Montréal) · Cited by 2
A Framework for Delivering Rigorously Trusted Services
Liu, D., & Žic, J. (2010) · IEEE International Conference on Web Services (ICWS) · doi:10.1109/icws.2010.61 · Cited by 2
“A web service is said rigorously trusted if there are checkable evidences to prove it behaves as claimed.”
BackgroundTavani, H. T. (2001) · ACM SIGCAS Computers and Society · doi:10.1145/503345.503349 · Cited by 2
Result evaluation strategies for peer selection in P2P
Harish, M., Anandavelu, N., Anbalagan, N., et al. (2008) · doi:10.1145/1341771.1341799 · Cited by 2
Liu, F., Zhang, W., Ding, Y., et al. (2009) · doi:10.1145/1543834.1543880 · Cited by 2
“There is no central authority because of their unique decentralized nature to dictate the rules for peer interaction and that interaction often occur among previously unknown peers, so peers might maliciously behave and harm others in the system [3].”
BackgroundWeb Services-Based Architecture for Reducing Behavior and Quality Uncertainties
Mandaric, A., Oberweis, A., & Perc, P. (2006) · International Conference on e-Science · doi:10.1109/e-science.2005.85 · Cited by 2
“…estimating the trustworthiness concerning privacy, authenticity or fulfillment issues in the presence of pseudonymous or anonymous actors (behavior uncertainty), or the quality of objects such as products or services (quality uncertainty) and may even lead to a failure of market mechanisms [1].”
BackgroundOrganizing and Program Committees
(2007) · Conference on Local Computer Networks · doi:10.1109/lcn.2007.6 · Cited by 2
Osorio, F. C. C., & JustinWhitney (2006) · doi:10.1109/seccmw.2005.1588314 · Cited by 2
Supporting Meaningful Social Networks
Huang, Y. (2009) · ePrints Soton (University of Southampton) · Cited by 2
Granularity Considering in a Trust Model for P2P Networks
Li, M., Yizhi, R., Sakurai, K., et al. (2008) · International Conference on Advanced Information Networking and Applications Workshops (WAINA) · doi:10.1109/waina.2008.65 · Cited by 2
“…considering the special kind of models, and the related research in trust model in P2P networks can be classified into five categories: Online reputation-based trust model. eBay [1], Amazon Auctions and OnSale Exchange are good examples of online marketplaces that use reputation mechanisms.”
BackgroundReflections and Reactions to Social Accounting Meta-Data
Gleave, E., & Smith, M. A. (2007) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-1-84628-905-7_5 · Cited by 2
Design and Management of Material Sharing System for Ubiquitous Vocabulary Learning
Jin, X., Ishikawa, M., Kaneko, K., et al. (2008) · IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT) · doi:10.1109/icalt.2008.49 · Cited by 2
“In addition, we added a function that allows learners to evaluate the learning materials and to give comments to them because user-driven reputation systems are often useful when there are many materials [3].”
BackgroundBringing confidence to the Web - combining the power of SET and reputation systems
Kinateder, M., & Rothermel, K. (2004) · International Symposium on VLSI Technology, Systems and Applications (VLSI-TSA) · doi:10.1109/ccnc.2004.1286920 · Cited by 2
“More information on UniTEC can be found in [1], [2] and on reputation systems in general in [3] and [4].”
BackgroundDynamic gain estimation in ambient media services
Hossain, M. A., Atrey, P. K., & Saddik, A. E. (2008) · doi:10.1145/1461912.1461922 · Cited by 2
“A reputation system collects feedback about the participants and products and helps to determine trustworthiness among the participants [14].”
BackgroundSecure Payment Architectures and Other Applications of Trusted Computing
Balfe, S. (2009) · Cited by 2
Security protocols for mobile ad hoc networks
Davis, C. R. (2006) · eScholarship@McGill (McGill) · doi:10.82308/33610 · Cited by 2
Mapping the Intellectual Structure of Contemporary Technology Management Research
Tai, C.-H., Lin, C.-C., Lee, C.-W., et al. (2013) · Academy of Management Proceedings · doi:10.5465/ambpp.2013.12095abstract · Cited by 2
Reputation model based on rating data and application in recommender systems
Abdel‐Hafez, A. (2016) · doi:10.13140/rg.2.1.2023.2567 · Cited by 2
Examining the role of trust in shaping customer satisfaction of mobile banking
Yousuf, M. A. (2016) · UTHM Institutional Repository (Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia) · Cited by 2
Reputation-Based Pricing for Grid Computing in E-Science
Anandasivam, A., & Neumann, D. (2008) · Journal of the Association for Information Systems · Cited by 2
The Square-Root Agreement Rule for Incentivizing Objective Feedback in Online PlatformsPreprint
Kamble, V., Shah, N. B., Marn, D., et al. (2019) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.3488831 · Cited by 2
Reputations in Markets with Asymmetric Information: A Classroom GamePreprint
Wolf, J. R., & Myerscough, M. A. (2005) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.740565 · Cited by 2
The Next Generation of Shopbots
Fasli, M. (2009) · IGI Global eBooks · doi:10.4018/978-1-59904-978-6.ch002 · Cited by 2
The Impact of Reputation Systems on Peer Feedback in Social MediaPreprint
Huh, J., Godes, D., & Tirunillai, S. (2022) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.3990127 · Cited by 2
Fair Reputation Evaluating Protocol for Mobile Ad Hoc Network
Zhulei, Nyang, D., Lee, K.-H., et al. (2006) · International Conference on Computational Intelligence and Security (CIS) · doi:10.1109/iccias.2006.294208 · Cited by 2
The Generic Collective Intelligence Framework: A Qualitative ViewPreprint
Suran, S., Pattanaik, V., & Draheim, D. (2023) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4468723 · Cited by 2
Towards Trustworthy Resource Selection in Grid: A Fuzzy Partial Ordering based Approach
Jia, J., & Qu, X. (2006) · Cited by 2
3rd ECDL Workshop on Web Archives
Day, M. (2003) · Ariadne · Cited by 2
Thiedeke, U. (2004) · VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-322-80482-2_12 · Cited by 2
Online trust through humanized website design: research model and empirical study
Head, M. M., Hassanein, K., Cho, E., & Michael G. DeGroote School of Business McMaster University (2002) · doi:10.71548/541 · Cited by 2
'It's a metrosexual thing' : a discourse analytical examination of masculinities
Hall, M. (2014) · Nottingham Trent University's Institutional Repository (Nottingham Trent Repository) · Cited by 2
Hutchinson, S. E., & Erbacher, R. F. (2015) · Proceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · doi:10.1117/12.2177464 · Cited by 1
Akgul, M., & Montazemi, A. R. (2023) · Advances in information quality and management · doi:10.4018/978-1-6684-7366-5.ch055 · Cited by 2
Towards a Blockchain-Enabled Trustworthy Market Framework
Papaioannou, T. G., Mantzonis, D., & Ritas, V. (2024) · IEEE International Conference on Blockchain (Blockchain) · doi:10.1109/blockchain62396.2024.00096 · Cited by 1
Grieco, C. (2024) · Contributions to management science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-76279-6_3 · Cited by 1
A fuzzy reputation system for Radio Access Network sharing
Lechevalier, P.-M., Busnel, Y., Ludinard, R., et al. (2024) · doi:10.1109/nca61908.2024.00019 · Cited by 1
Mitigating the Participation Bias by Balancing Extreme Ratings
Guo, Y., Kong, Y., & Liu, J. (2025) · International World Wide Web Conference (WWW) · doi:10.1145/3696410.3714556 · Cited by 1
Peng, Y., Huang, J., & Li, C. S. (2025) · IEEE Internet of Things Journal · doi:10.1109/jiot.2025.3588990 · Cited by 1
“Reputation is understood as the expected behavior of entities derived from direct observation or historical actions of these entities [9].”
Wang, M.-H., Wan, F., Tang, S., & Zhang, Y. (2025) · Information Processing & Management · doi:10.1016/j.ipm.2025.104372 · Cited by 1
Forming Teams of Smart Objects to Support Mobile Edge Computing for IoT-Based Connected Vehicles
Messina, F., Rosaci, D., & Sarnè, G. M. L. (2025) · Applied Sciences · doi:10.3390/app15179483 · Cited by 1
The Current State of Research on Reputation Evaluation of Network Nodes
Xu, J., Huang, L., Zhang, F., et al. (2025) · Electronics · doi:10.3390/electronics14193900 · Cited by 1
“It steers users towards informed trust decisions by gauging the reliability of an entity’s behavior and the veracity of associated content, thus mitigating the risks that users may potentially encounter during the utilization of online resources[1,2].”
Peng, Y., & Huang, J. (2025) · Peer-to-Peer Networking and Applications · doi:10.1007/s12083-025-02157-8 · Cited by 1
“In this case, reputation-based methods are used to evaluate trust, which is a global perception of the behavior of an entity based on trust established by other entities [44].”
Beyond means: A dynamic framework for predicting customer satisfaction
Naumzik, C., Maarouf, A., Feuerriegel, S., & Weinmann, M. (2026) · International Journal of Research in Marketing · doi:10.1016/j.ijresmar.2026.03.006 · Cited by 1
Reputation-based nonlinear investment promotes cooperation in networked N-player trust games
Jiang, X., & Jia, W. (2026) · Chaos An Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science · doi:10.1063/5.0336959 · Cited by 4
Value co-creation in digital platform ecosystems: a stakeholder-centric conceptual model
Zeamari, I. (2026) · Journal of Enterprise Information Management · doi:10.1108/jeim-02-2026-0206 · Cited by 1
An Efficient Incentive Compatible Mechanism for Paid Crowdsourcing
Gupta, S. R., Mukhopadhyay, S., & Gosh, D. (2012) · Advances in intelligent systems and computing · doi:10.1007/978-81-322-0740-5_72 · Cited by 1
REPUTATION SYSTEM IN PEER-TO-PEER NETWORK: DESIGN AND CLASSIFICATION
Kumar, E., Diwaker, E., & Chaudhary, A. (2011) · Journal of Global Research in Computer Sciences · Cited by 1
Trusted Reputation Management Service for Peer-to-Peer Collaboration
Deng, L., He, Y., & Xu, Z. (2008) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-540-88873-4_10 · Cited by 1
Policy-Based Attestation of Service Behavior for Establishing Rigorous Trust
Liu, D., & Žic, J. (2010) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-16934-2_18 · Cited by 1
Promoting learning of instructional design via overlay design tools
Canny, J., & Carle, A. J. (2012) · ProQuest LLC eBooks · Cited by 1
Assessing Robustness of Reputation Systems Regarding Interdependent Manipulations
Reitzenstein, I., & Peters, R. (2009) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-03964-5_27 · Cited by 1
Reputation, Pricing and the E-Science Grid
Anandasivam, A., & Neumann, D. (2009) · Birkhäuser Basel eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-7643-8899-7_3 · Cited by 1
An Access Control Mechanism based on Permission Delegation in P2P Network
Changyou, Z., Cao, Y., Renfen, L., et al. (2014) · Cited by 1
Outlier detection in reputation management system for P2P networks using rough set theory
Chithra, S., & Anand, S. (2013) · Security and Communication Networks · doi:10.1002/sec.685 · Cited by 1
Distinguishing the Master to Defend DDoS Attack in Peer-to-Peer Networks
Hou, L., Duan, H., & Wu, J. (2010) · IEEE International Conference on Computer and Information Technology (CIT) · doi:10.1109/cit.2010.184 · Cited by 1
Trust‐annotated ontology integration using social modelling*
Hooijmaijers, D., & Stumptner, M. (2008) · Expert Systems · doi:10.1111/j.1468-0394.2008.00458.x · Cited by 1
A cooperative environment for the negotiation of term taxonomies in digital libraries
Bellomi, F., Cristani, M., & Cuel, R. (2005) · Library Management · doi:10.1108/01435120510596116 · Cited by 1
A Web of Trust Oriented Information Flow Network
Hu, Y., & Panda, B. (2007) · International Conference on Integration of Knowledge Intensive Multi-Agent Systems · doi:10.1109/kimas.2007.369832 · Cited by 1
An incentive-based mechanism for fair bidirectional transmissions in wireless mesh networks
Chuang, M.-C. (2014) · Computers & Electrical Engineering · doi:10.1016/j.compeleceng.2014.03.004 · Cited by 1
Attack-resistant techniques in P2P reputation systems
Jiang, X., & Ye, L. (2010) · doi:10.1109/icnds.2010.5479214 · Cited by 1
Stepaniuk, K. (2014) · Ekonomia i Prawo · doi:10.12775/eip.2014.009 · Cited by 1
New hybrid distributed voting algorithm
Evseenko, N. (2013) · doi:10.1109/iccat.2013.6522026 · Cited by 1
“Moreover, distributed vote systems are the solution of a problem considered in [15], “limited distribution of feedback limits its effectiveness”.”
BackgroundTag Trajectory Generation Scheme for RFID Tag Tracing in Ubiquitous Computing
Kim, J., Oh, D., & Kim, K.-C. (2009) · The KIPS Transactions PartD · doi:10.3745/kipstd.2009.16-d.1.1 · Cited by 1
Towards reliable trust establishment in grid
Yang, X., & Qu, X. (2006) · doi:10.1145/1501434.1501493 · Cited by 1
Competition in Online Comparison Shopping Services
Saastamoinen, J. (2011) · International Journal of Online Marketing · doi:10.4018/ijom.2011070101 · Cited by 1
“This is an electronic counterpart to the word-of-mouth in the physical world (Resnick et al., 2000).”
BackgroundInfluentialA Mediator-Based Certified Reputation Scheme
Sheng-lin, Z., Mingwu, Z., & Yang, B. (2010) · doi:10.1109/iccms.2010.401 · Cited by 1
Social choice and individual values in the electronic republic
Schwartz, T. (2011) · Social Choice and Welfare · doi:10.1007/s00355-011-0580-z · Cited by 1
“…= ∑ y∈To(x) PR(y) |Frm(y)| This makes the ranking one of “authority”: page ranks measure how often a “page” is cited by how well-cited a set of pages (Resnick et al. 2000, based on Page et al. 1998; Brin and Page 1998, and ultimately Pinksy and Narin 1976, with axomatic characterization by…”
BackgroundA System for Centralizing Online Reputation
Benyoucef, M., Li, H., & von Bochmann, G. (2011) · Journal of Emerging Technologies in Web Intelligence · doi:10.4304/jetwi.3.3.179-187 · Cited by 1
“Online reputation systems are community tools that “collect, distribute, and aggregate feedback about participants’ past behaviour” [5].”
BackgroundInfluentialReputation mechanism based online lemon problems solving system
Zhang, X., & Zhang, Y. (2005) · doi:10.1109/icsssm.2005.1499584 · Cited by 1
Secure trust management for mobile platforms
Ege, R. K. (2014) · 2012 International Conference on Computing, Networking and Communications (ICNC) · doi:10.1109/iccnc.2014.6785364 · Cited by 1
“Our goal is to measure how robust our trust management is and how well it withstands the introduction of malevolent peers.”
BackgroundFile replication and consistency maintenance mechanism in a trusted distributed environment
Vardhan, M., & Kushwaha, D. S. (2012) · CSI Transactions on ICT · doi:10.1007/s40012-012-0002-0 · Cited by 1
WSANRep, WSAN Reputation-Based Selection in Open Environments
Mármol, F. G., Sorge, C., Ugus, O., et al. (2011) · Wireless Personal Communications · doi:10.1007/s11277-011-0490-5 · Cited by 1
Multimodal security enforcement framework for wireless ad hoc networks
Lü, Y., Abouzakhar, N. S., Xiao, H., et al. (2009) · doi:10.1145/1582379.1582580 · Cited by 1
Optimizing Multiple Centrality Computations for Reputation Systems
von der Weth, C., Böhm, K., & Hutter, C. (2010) · IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining (ASONAM) · doi:10.1109/asonam.2010.54 · Cited by 1
Research on Reputation Systems Based on E-Business to Guarantee Integrity Transactions
Zhang, H. L., Li, S. Y., & Jia, X. J. (2011) · Advanced materials research · doi:10.4028/www.scientific.net/amr.403-408.2953 · Cited by 1
“In order to discuss conveniently, this paper based on the theory of Resnick [3,4], and assume the CORS system should satisfy thereinafter required condition: There are many entities in the reputation system which can exist chronically.”
MethodAlmulla, M., Yahyaoui, H., & Kamal, I. (2011) · doi:10.1145/2107556.2107559 · Cited by 1
Towards a Trust Management Model for E-travel
Cui, W., Wang, H., Sui, Q., et al. (2007) · International Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work in Design (CSCWD) · doi:10.1109/cscwd.2007.4281551 · Cited by 1
A Public Keys Based Architecture for P2P Identification, Content Authenticity and Reputation
Brisola, N. L., Santin, A. O., Lung, L. C., et al. (2009) · International Conference on Advanced Information Networking and Applications Workshops (WAINA) · doi:10.1109/waina.2009.139 · Cited by 1
“In this case, peers with positive reputation in previous access can be considered as credible [3].”
BackgroundAn improved collaborative filtering recommendation algorithm based on factor of credit
Tong, H., Lv, T., & Huang, P. (2009) · IEEE International Conference on Network Infrastructure and Digital Content (IC-NIDC) · doi:10.1109/icnidc.2009.5360810 · Cited by 1
The Design and Implementation of an Active Peer Agent Providing Personalized User Interface
Cho, K., Kim, S., & Yun, S.-H. (2005) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/11552413_10 · Cited by 1
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
