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
“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]
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]
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 1,801–1,900 of 2,164
Dissecting trust and the assurance-violation dynamic
Redwine, S. T. (2003) · Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS) · doi:10.1109/hicss.2003.1174903 · Cited by 1
Design and Analysis of a Practical E-Voting Protocol
Novotný, M. (2009) · IFIP advances in information and communication technology · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-03315-5_13 · Cited by 1
Heightening Security of P2P Networks by Neighborhood Key Method
Cao, L. (2008) · International Conference on Intelligent Networks and Intelligent Systems · doi:10.1109/icinis.2008.42 · Cited by 1
“We propose a neighborhood key method, authentication scheme base on Zero-Knowledge Proof without leaking any sensitive information, each peer shares secrets only with authenticated neighbors, which generate verifiable pseudonym instead of their real identity from using a one-way hash function.”
MethodStrategic Provider Selection in a Policy-Based Helping Scenario
Hutter, C., Yue, J. Z., von der Weth, C., & Böhm, K. (2010) · IEEE Conference on Commerce and Enterprise Computing (CEC) · doi:10.1109/cec.2010.26 · Cited by 1
“For this purpose, we first formulate our hypotheses and then present the setting of the experiment.”
MethodA Framework for Analyzing and Monitoring the Impact of Dependencies on Quality
Ligaarden, O. S. (2012) · NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives · Cited by 1
Henning, K. S. S., & Lin, Z. (2008) · Cited by 1
Sensor Network Data Faults and Their Detection Using Bayesian Methods
Angeles, L. (2008) · Cited by 1
DWT Domain Zero Digital Image Watermarking Algorithm Against Rotation Attack
Wang, N. (2009) · Jisuanji gongcheng · Cited by 1
A Novel Reputation Computing Model - (Work-in-Progress).
Zhang, Y., Li, Q. L., & Lin, Z. (2010) · Cited by 1
How complementor partners add value to e-tailers?
Zhang, Y. (2014) · NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives · Cited by 1
Private and censorship-resistant communication over public networks
Rogers, M. (2011) · UCL Discovery (University College London) · Cited by 1
Cooperation and deviation in market-based resource allocation
Lepler, J. H. (2021) · doi:10.48456/tr-622 · Cited by 1
Davis, C. R., Crépeau, C., & Maheswaran, M. (2010) · doi:10.1002/9780470579398.ch16 · Cited by 1
A Combined Reputation Model for Distributed System
Jin, F., & Niu, Z. (2009) · International Conference on Information Science and Engineering · doi:10.1109/icise.2009.12 · Cited by 1
An evaluation of systems for presenting, endorsing, and evaluating credentials in online communities
Ghajar-Khosravi, S., & Hockema, S. A. (2009) · IEEE Toronto International Conference Science and Technology for Humanity · doi:10.1109/tic-sth.2009.5444400 · Cited by 1
“5) Coping with easy change of names (and “identity management”) in online environments [2, 13].”
Backgroundde Laat, P. B., Brey, P. A. E., Grodzinsky, F. S., et al. (2005) · University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) · Cited by 1
E2F Communities : Connecting the Online and Offline Worlds
Piper, M. (2012) · Diva portal (Dalarna University Library) · Cited by 1
A trading model and security regime for mobile e-commerce via ad hoc wireless networking
Osman, H. (2016) · Cited by 1
From Raw Information on the Internet to Useful Knowledge
Hijikata, Y., Iguchi, M., Fujimoto, K., et al. (2003) · Journal of Japan Society for Fuzzy Theory and Intelligent Informatics · doi:10.3156/jsoft.15.489 · Cited by 1
Designing for acceptance: Lessons from two electronic intermediaries in the Dutch insurance industry
Fielt, E., Faber, E., Janssen, W., et al. (2005) · Cited by 1
An Integrated Architecture for Ad Hoc Grids
Amin, K. (2006) · doi:10.12794/metadc5300 · Cited by 1
A Random Walk based Trust Ranking in Distributed SystemsPreprint
Stannat, A., & Pouwelse, J. A. (2019) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1903.05900 · Cited by 1
“these reviews the network generates reputation systems for all nodes. Agents then decide who to interact with based on this reputation, thereby incentivizing cooperative behavior of all participants [5]. The TU Delft’s Blockchain Lab aims to take this trust system a step further, by removing the central authority that…”
BackgroundThe Wisdom of Crowds as a Model for Trust and Security in Peer Groups
Whitney, J. D. (2005) · Digital WPI · Cited by 1
How to design a good reputation system for an online peer-to-peer platform
Veldhuizen, F. L. M. (2020) · Cited by 1
Zloteanu, M., Harvey, N., Tuckett, D., & Livan, G. (2018) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.3136514 · Cited by 1
Ensuring Trust in One Time Exchanges: Solving the Qos ProblemPreprint
Huberman, B. A., Wu, F., & Zhang, L. (2005) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.869266 · Cited by 1
Reputation and Pricing Dynamics in Online MarketsPreprint
Ma, Q., Huang, J., Başar, T., et al. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2103.16100 · Cited by 1
“There has been some research on reputation systems [5] for online markets, such as those focusing on reputation characterization [12], empirical studies on the impact of reputation on behaviors of sellers and buyers [13–17], reputation accumulation and manipulation [4, 18, 19], and incentive mechanism design for feedb…”
BackgroundInformation Quality and Online Reputation Systems: A Preliminary Investigation
Klein, B. D. (2005) · Journal of the Association for Information Systems · Cited by 1
Robuste Reputationssysteme auf Elektronischen Märkten.
Peters, R., & Reitzenstein, I. (2008) · Multikonferenz Wirtschaftsinformatik · Cited by 1
Exploiting Graph Properties for Decentralized Reputation Systems
Gkorou, D. (2014) · Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) · doi:10.4233/uuid:0fc40431-61ce-4bf6-b028-37c316e3e6b7 · Cited by 1
Rewards and Risks in P2P Content Delivery
Ege, R. K., Yang, L., & Whittaker, R. (2009)
Privacy Preserving Reputation Management in Social Networks
Hasan, O., & Brunie, L. (2013) · Lecture notes in social networks · doi:10.1007/978-3-7091-0894-9_8
“another’s pasts in future interactions constrains their behavior in the present [54].”
BackgroundHavakhor, T., Soror, A. A., & Sabherwal, R. (2014) · Journal of the Association for Information Systems
So You Think You are Safe: Implications of Quality Uncertainty in Security SoftwarePreprint
Khern-am-nuai, W., Shimao, H., & Kannan, K. N. (2015) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.2621846
Mining E-Commerce Feedback Comments for Dimension Rating Profiles
Cui, L., Zhang, X., Wang, Y., et al. (2013) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-53914-5_1
Sosiaalisen asiakastiedon ulottuvuudet
Pihlaja, J. (2013) · Tampere University Institutional Repository (Tampere University)
Cooperation-Based Trust Model and Its Application in Network Security Management
Liu, W., Duan, H., & Ren, P. (2011) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-24650-0_39
“Reputation system [1][2] emerges as a viable solution for evaluating the trustworthiness of users in some environments such as online e-commerce markets and communities.”
BackgroundThe Effects of Online Rating Validity on Decision Performance
Poston, R. S., & Hennington, A. (2007)
Incentive Mechanisms for Mobile Music Distribution
Furini, M., & Montangero, M. (2009) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-0-387-89024-1_14
“This selfish behavior, better known as the free-riders problem, can be mitigated by stimulating customers cooperation with incentive mechanisms [1, 7, 9, 15, 24, 27].”
BackgroundResearch on Indexing Systems for Enterprise Credit Evaluation in B2B
Ha, J., & Wang, Y. (2007) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-0-387-75466-6_27
Design Principles of Large‐Scale Distributed System
Bonnaire, X., & Sens, P. (2013) · doi:10.1002/9781118601365.ch3
Reputation, Trust and Recommendation Systems in Peer-to-Peer Systems
Patt-Shamir, B. (2008) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-540-69355-0_2
Fundamental models and algorithms for a distributed reputation system
Engler, M. (2007) · OPUS Publication Server of the University of Stuttgart (University of Stuttgart) · doi:10.18419/opus-2624
Lauw, H. W., & Lim, E. (2009) · CRC Press eBooks · doi:10.1081/e-elis3-120043522
“The feedback score (reputation) of an actor is his/her running total of feedback points [46].”
BackgroundFuzzy Service Selection and Interaction Review in Distributed Electronic Markets
Schmidt, S., Steele, R. J., & Dillon, T. S. (2007) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-540-74409-2_26
An e-Learning Content Delivery System “LECMIS” employing Collective Intelligence
Dobashi, Y., Tsukahara, W., Tedara, T., et al. (2008) · EdMedia: World Conference on Educational Media and Technology
Trust Management Using Networks of Volunteers in Ubiquitous Computing Environments
Kim, M., Mohan Kumar, M., & Jung, S. (2009) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-04190-7_25
“For trustworthy transactions between consumers and producers in commercial Internet applications such as eBay or Amazon, centralized reputation systems are widely used [14].”
BackgroundBuilding Trust in Online E-markets through Dual Deposit under Feedback Aggregated Mechanism
Zhang, E., Zheng, F., & Ying-luo, W. (2004) · Journal of the Association for Information Systems
The IONWI Algorithm: Learning when and when not to interrupt
Schiaffino, S., & Amandi, A. (2006) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-0-387-34747-9_3
ReciproCity: construction of identity and social experiences in online environments
Paulin, C. A. (2009) · Summit (Simon Fraser University)
Romantic travellers’ cognitive dissonance and willingness to revisit Asian hotels
Herjanto, H., & Gaur, S. (2013) · Tuwhera (Auckland University of Technology)
Econometric Analysis of Pricing and Operational Strategies
Moreno-Garcia, A. (2012) · Scholarly Commons (University of Pennsylvania)
A Mechanism Approach to Reduce New Seller Ramp-Up Time in eBay-Like Reputation Systems
Xie, H. L., & Lui, J. C. S. (2015) · IEEE International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems (ICDCS) · doi:10.1109/icdcs.2015.101
“A high reputation seller can attract more transactions leading to higher revenue[2].”
BackgroundTarmizi, H., & Najjar, L. (2006) · Journal of the Association for Information Systems
Factoid Mining Based Content Trust Model for Information Retrieval
Wang, W., Zeng, G., Sun, M., et al. (2007) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-540-77018-3_49
Phillips, L. (2013) · eSource (Dublin Business School)
Cooperation through tags and context awareness
Griffiths, N. (2008) · Warwick Research Archive Portal (University of Warwick) · doi:10.82444/warw.33640282
Lopes, A. B., & García, A. C. B. (2006) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-0-387-34747-9_8
Commercial Applications in Digital Communications
Steinfield, C. W. (2015) · The International Encyclopedia of Digital Communication and Society · doi:10.1002/9781118767771.wbiedcs156
“Early work on reputation systems sought to explain how it was possible to build enough trust on services such as eBay that strangers would be willing to engage in economic exchange for hard to value items like collectibles and used goods (Resnick et al., 2000).”
BackgroundA Trustworthy Resource Selection Approach in Grid with Fuzzy Reputation Aggregation
Gui, C., Wu, Q., & Wang, H. (2007) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-540-72575-6_23
Dynamic multimedia content access in a ubiquitous and distributed computing environment
Rong, L. (2007) · Research Online (University of Wollongong)
Exploring the Popularity, Reputation and Certification of User-Generated Software
Li, H. (2012) · INRIA a CCSD electronic archive server
Centeno, R., Hermoso, R., & Fasli, M. (2013) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-39860-5_13
A scheme of trust management system for P2P network
Liang, B., Gu, L., Sun, B., et al. (2010) · International Conference on Advanced Communication Technology
Learning from collective preferences, behavior, and beliefs
Kearns, M. J., & Vaughan, J. W. (2009)
Peer to peer media management for augmented reality
Ege, R. K. (2015) · IEEE International Conference on Electro Information Technology · doi:10.1109/eit.2015.7293423
“experiences [6] in a self-regulating system.”
Dynamic Scenes and Camera Networks
Meingast, M. L., Meingast, M. L., Meingast, M. L., et al. (2013)
Exploiting Business Process Knowledge for Process Improvement
Hermosa, R., & Darío, C. (2013)
Some Thoughts on Using Argumentation to Handle Trust
Parsons, S., Tang, Y., Cai, K., Sklar, E. I., & McBurney, P. (2011) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-22359-4_1
Trusting information and sources in open multi-agent systems
Kim, J. W. (2003) · Texas ScholarWorks (Texas Digital Library)
A Stratifed Model for Security in Peer Networks: A Case for Fine Grain Granularity
Osorio, F. C. C., & Whitney, J. D. (2006) · IEEE International Performance, Computing, and Communications Conference · doi:10.1109/.2006.1629402
Trusted Computing in mobiler Anwendung: Von Zugangskontrolle zu Identitäten
Schmidt, A., & Kuntze, N. (2008) · Vieweg+Teubner eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-8348-9452-6_14
A Comprehensive Reputation Computation Model Based on Fuzzy Regression Method of Cross-Domain Users
Zhou, J. H., Hu, G. Y., & Pang, Q. (2011) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-23982-3_4
Towards a Trust and Reputation Framework for Social Web Platforms
Nguyen, T. P. H., Liquori, L., Martin, B., et al. (2012) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-33618-8_3
“Some of the main unwanted behaviors of users that might appear in TRSs are: free riding (people are usually not willing to give feedback if they are not given an incentive to do so [10]), untruthful rating (users give incorrect feedback either because of malicious intent or because of unintended and uncontrolled varia…”
BackgroundStatistical physics for compressed sensing and information hiding
Manoel, A. A. M. (2015) · Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations (Universidade de São Paulo) · doi:10.11606/t.43.2015.tde-08102015-140952
JAGAMISMAJANDUSE TOIMIMINE KASUTAJALT KASUTAJALE VEEBIKESKKONDADE NÄITEL
Herzmann, J. (2015) · DSpace repository (University of Tartu)
Validation of a Trust Approach in Multi-Organization Environments
Toumi, K., Cavalli, A. R., & Andrés, C. (2014) · International Journal of Secure Software Engineering · doi:10.4018/ijsse.2014010101
GaTMo: Game theoretic trust model for peer to peer networks
Sundaresan, V. L., GaneshKumar, M., & Siddarrthraman, R. (2009) · doi:10.1109/nabic.2009.5393672
Sentiment Analysis for intelligent ratings management
Hashmi, K., Najmi, E., Ammar, N., et al. (2014) · IEEE/ACS International Conference on Computer Systems and Applications (AICCSA) · doi:10.1109/aiccsa.2014.7073225
“In fact, research results indicate that reliable reputation systems increase user’s interest in the web[4][22].”
BackgroundLearning reputation in an authorship network
Dhanjal, C., & Clémençon, S. (2014) · ACM Symposium on Applied Computing · doi:10.1145/2554850.2555098
“In so-called Reputation Systems [10] one has explicit ratings of reputation such seller feedback provided on the eBay online auction site.”
BackgroundMakedon, F. S., Loukis, E., & Ford, J. (2010) · International Journal of Applied Systemic Studies · doi:10.1504/ijass.2010.034621
Collaborative Admission Control Scheme for Group-Based P2P Contents Sharing Systems
Kadowaki, K., & Fujita, S. (2012) · IEEE International Conference on Advanced Information Networking and Applications (AINA) · doi:10.1109/aina.2012.31
Web Mashup Integration to End-Users using QoS and Proficient Assessments
Subbulakshmi, S., & Kumar.B, P. (2013) · International Journal of Computer Applications · doi:10.5120/13104-0407
Incremental PID-like algorithm based trust model in peer-to-peer networks
Chen, J., Yeap, W. K., & Bruda, S. D. (2009) · International Conference on Communications and Networking in China (ChinaCom) · doi:10.1109/chinacom.2009.5339708
“Recent works demonstrated that using a reputation-based trust system is an effective way for peers to minimize the threats and protect the system [1-3].”
BackgroundVannoy, S. A. (2011) · International Journal of Dependable and Trustworthy Information Systems · doi:10.4018/jdtis.2011010102
Trusted P2P Media Delivery to Mobile Devices
Ege, R. K. (2010) · International Conference on Systems · doi:10.1109/icons.2010.31
“Trust can be built by either a trusted third party [2] or by community-based feedback from past experiences [3] in a self-regulating system.”
BackgroundInformation Sharing Using an Electronic Marketplace
Montaña, D., Leung, A., & Brinn, M. (2005) · Proceedings - IEEE Aerospace Conference · doi:10.1109/aero.2005.1559619
“How does the market prevent cheating, particularly with respect to the sale of bad information? Does the market require a reputation system [15]? In our description in the next section of a simple information sharing market that we have actually implemented, we answer these questions among others for an example market.”
BackgroundGaTMo: Game theoretic trust model for peer to peer networks
GaneshKumar, M. (2009) · Asian Himalayas International Conference on Internet · doi:10.1109/ahici.2009.5340316
Jin, Y., Gu, Z., & Ban, Z. (2007) · International Conference on Communications and Networking in China (ChinaCom) · doi:10.1109/chinacom.2007.4469377
The Permission Delegation Mechanism for P2P Network
Changyou, Z., Renfen, L., Cao, Y., et al. (2007) · doi:10.1109/fgcn.2007.216
A Network Selection Algorithm Based on Reputation Model
Zhang, W., Wu, X., Wei, T., et al. (2013) · International Conference on Instrumentation and Measurement, Computer, Communication and Control (IMCCC) · doi:10.1109/imccc.2013.97
“Based on the issues above, this paper will design a heterogeneous network selection algorithm based on reputation model [6] which can effectively reduce the energy consumption, have lower packet loss rate and balance the load of candidate networks.”
BackgroundA collaborative reputation-based vetting model for online certification of businesses
Flasi, A. A., Serhani, M. A., & Barka, E. S. (2011) · doi:10.1145/2107556.2107567
Trust Establishment: an enabler for dynamic Virtual Organizations
Hassan, M. W., & Sultana, T. (2007) · International Conference on Emerging Technologies · doi:10.1109/icet.2007.4516336
Kim, M. S. (2009) · The KIPS Transactions PartD · doi:10.3745/kipstd.2009.16-d.1.145
“이는 물품을 구입한다는 같은 입장 에 있는 고객들 간의 정보에 구매자들 서로 서로가 상당히 신뢰감을 가지고 있다는 것을 보여주고 있다[5, 25].”
Comparing Customer Ratings from Multiple Reputation Systems: The Case of New York City Hotels
Sanford, D. M., & Otto, J. (2012) · Tourism Review International · doi:10.3727/154427213x13600072840488
Cluster-Based Reputation Model in Peer-to-Peer Network
Chen, M., Kita, K., & Luo, X. R. (2011) · International Journal of Machine Learning and Computing · doi:10.7763/ijmlc.2011.v1.54
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
