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 101–200 of 2,164
Forman, C., Ghose, A., & Wiesenfeld, B. M. (2006) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.1026893 · Cited by 228
Social media self-efficacy and information evaluation online
Hocevar, K. P., Flanagin, A. J., & Metzger, M. J. (2014) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.07.020 · Cited by 188
Distributed Reputation Management for Electronic Commerce
Yu, B., & Singh, M. P. (2002) · Computational Intelligence · doi:10.1111/1467-8640.00202 · Cited by 221
Ranking in evolving complex networks
Liao, H., Mariani, M. S., Medo, M., Zhang, Y., & Zhou, M. (2017) · reroDoc Digital Library · Cited by 221
The Effect of Web Site Perceptions on Initial Trust in the Owner Company
Hampton-Sosa, W., & Koufaris, M. (2005) · International Journal of Electronic Commerce · doi:10.1080/10864415.2005.11043965 · Cited by 226
Reputation systems: A survey and taxonomy
Hendrikx, F., Bubendorfer, K., & Chard, R. (2015) · Journal of Parallel and Distributed Computing · doi:10.1016/j.jpdc.2014.08.004 · Cited by 219
“Once reputation data is collected, it can be shared amongst users to closely emulate some of the characteristics of a long-term relationship [66], without ever having to have previously interacted.”
BackgroundInfluentialRanking in evolving complex networks
Liao, H., Mariani, M. S., Medo, M., Zhang, Y., & Zhou, M.-Y. (2017) · Physics Reports · doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2017.05.001 · Cited by 239
“Ratings by little reputed users are then assumed to have potentially adverse affect on the final results, and they are thus given correspondingly lowweights which helps to limit their impact on the system [144,145,151].”
BackgroundA reputation-based trust model for peer-to-peer e-commerce communities
Xiong, L., & Liu, L. (2003) · doi:10.1109/coec.2003.1210262 · Cited by 218
“Reputation systems [16] provide a way for building trust through social control without trusted third parties.”
BackgroundREPLACE: A Reliable Trust-Based Platoon Service Recommendation Scheme in VANET
Hu, H., Lu, R., Zhang, Z., & Shao, J. (2016) · IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology · doi:10.1109/tvt.2016.2565001 · Cited by 216
“and register new IDs to launch new attacks [18].”
BackgroundJøsang, A., & Haller, J. (2007) · International Conference on Availability, Reliability and Security (ARES) · doi:10.1109/ares.2007.71 · Cited by 216
“Reputation systems represents soft security mechanisms that complement traditional information security mechanisms.”
BackgroundInfluentialReputation Formation and the Evolution of Cooperation in Anonymous Online Markets
Diekmann, A., Jann, B., Przepiorka, W., & Wehrli, S. (2013) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.1177/0003122413512316 · Cited by 220
“2 In anonymous online markets, the lack of social embeddedness is compensated for through an electronic rating system that efficiently and systematically disseminates information about traders’ reputations (Resnick et al. 2000).”
A framework for understanding trust factors in web-based health advice
Sillence, E., Briggs, P., Harris, P., & Fishwick, L. (2006) · International Journal of Human-Computer Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2006.02.007 · Cited by 210
Developing trust in large-scale peer-to-peer systems
Yu, B., Singh, M. P., & Sycara, K. P. (2004) · IEEE Symposium on Multi-Agent Security and Survivability · doi:10.1109/massur.2004.1368412 · Cited by 214
Trust-based recommendation systems
Andersen, R., Borgs, C., Chayes, J., Feige, U., Flaxman, A. D., Kalai, A. T., Mirrokni, V., & Tennenholtz, M. (2008) · International World Wide Web Conference (WWW) · doi:10.1145/1367497.1367525 · Cited by 210
“Ranking, reputation, recommendation, and trust systems have become essential ingredients of web-based multi-agent systems (e.g. [16] [22] [8] [25] [11]).”
BackgroundOpen Problems in Data-Sharing Peer-to-Peer Systems
Daswani, N., García-Molina, H., & Yang, B. (2002) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/3-540-36285-1_1 · Cited by 207
GossipTrust for Fast Reputation Aggregation in Peer-to-Peer Networks
Zhou, R., Hwang, K., & Cai, M. (2008) · IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering · doi:10.1109/tkde.2008.48 · Cited by 207
“TrustMe [26] offers another approach toward”
BackgroundA Robust Reputation System for Mobile Ad-hoc Networks
Buchegger, S., & Boudec, J. L. (2003) · Infoscience (Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne) · Cited by 203
Blockchain-Based Distributed Trust and Reputation Management Systems: A Survey
Bellini, E., Iraqi, Y., & Damiani, E. (2020) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2020.2969820 · Cited by 225
“Reputation is a global perception of an entity’s behavior based on the trust that other entities have established [7].”
BackgroundAssigning trust to Wikipedia content
Adler, B. T., Chatterjee, K., de Alfaro, L., Faella, M., Pye, I., & Raman, V. (2008) · International Symposium on Wikis and Open Collaboration (WikiSym) · doi:10.1145/1822258.1822293 · Cited by 203
“[15, 25, 5, 13, 11, 9]); these notions of trust however are generally based on user-to-user feedback, rather tha n on an algorithmic analysis of content evolution.”
BackgroundThe role of trust in information science and technology
Marsh, S., & Dibben, M. R. (2003) · Annual Review of Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/aris.1440370111 · Cited by 203
Doing Business with Strangers: Reputation in Online Service Marketplaces
Moreno, A., & Terwiesch, C. (2014) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.2014.0549 · Cited by 188
The effects of visual information in eWOM communication
Lin, T. M. Y., Lu, K., & Wu, J. (2012) · Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing · doi:10.1108/17505931211241341 · Cited by 202
Picazo-Vela, S., Chou, S. Y., Melcher, A. J., & Pearson, J. M. (2010) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2010.01.005 · Cited by 206
Understanding Graph-Based Trust Evaluation in Online Social Networks
Jiang, W., Wang, G., Bhuiyan, M. Z. A., & Wu, J. (2016) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/2906151 · Cited by 196
Hu, X., Lin, Z., Whinston, A. B., & Zhang, H. (2004) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.1040.0027 · Cited by 211
“Since online auction fraud can significantly deteriorate the still vulnerable consumer trust in electronic markets, building trust and securing online transactions are key to the future success of electronic commerce (Resnick et al. 2000, Friedman and Resnick 2001, Ba et al. 2003, Dellarocas 2003a).”
BackgroundA crowdsourceable QoE evaluation framework for multimedia content
Chen, K.-T., Wu, C., Chang, Y.-C., & Lei, C. (2009) · ACM International Conference on Multimedia (ACM MM) · doi:10.1145/1631272.1631339 · Cited by 192
“Reward and punishment mechanisms have been discussed extensively in works on peer production systems and reputation systems [30].”
BackgroundManaging and sharing servents' reputations in P2P systems
Damiani, E., di Vimercati, S. D. C., Paraboschi, S., et al. (2003) · IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering · doi:10.1109/tkde.2003.1209003 · Cited by 194
Building Consumer-to-Consumer Trust in E-Finance Marketplaces: An Empirical Analysis
Greiner, M. E., & Wang, H. (2010) · International Journal of Electronic Commerce · doi:10.2753/jec1086-4415150204 · Cited by 185
Enhanced Reputation Mechanism for Mobile Ad Hoc Networks
Liu, J., & Issarny, V. (2004) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-540-24747-0_5 · Cited by 189
“Therefore, it is necessary to build a reputation mechanism to enforce both active reputation information sharing and truthful recommendation elicitation, which are necessary for a reputation system to operate effectively [4].”
A subjective model for trustworthiness evaluation in the social Internet of Things
Nitti, M., Girau, R., Atzori, L., Iera, A., & Morabito, G. (2012) · IEEE International Symposium on Personal, Indoor and Mobile Radio Communications (PIMRC) · doi:10.1109/pimrc.2012.6362662 · Cited by 194
Detecting the Sybil Attack in Mobile Ad hoc Networks
Piro, C., Shields, C., & Levine, B. N. (2006) · International Conference on Security and Privacy in Communication Networks (SecureComm) · doi:10.1109/seccomw.2006.359558 · Cited by 188
“Other security mechanisms for ad hoc networks include protocols for determining and maintaining reputation information about nodes in the group [3, 18, 2, 21, 27].”
BackgroundA wiki for the life sciences where authorship matters
Hoffmann, R. (2008) · Nature Genetics · doi:10.1038/ng.f.217 · Cited by 181
Levina, N., & Arriaga, M. (2014) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.2014.0535 · Cited by 201
“The focus on how users attain high status has been central to research on online reputation systems (Resnick et al. 2000).”
BackgroundShould your MOOC forum use a reputation system?
Coetzee, D., Fox, A., Hearst, M. A., & Hartmann, B. (2014) · ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) · doi:10.1145/2531602.2531657 · Cited by 182
Dressing Your Online Auction Business for Success: An Experiment Comparing Two eBay Businesses1
Gregg, D. G., & Walczak, S. M. (2008) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/25148860 · Cited by 175
Competing for Attention: An Empirical Study of Online Reviewers’ Strategic Behavior1
Shen, W., Hu, Y. J., & Ulmer, J. R. (2015) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.25300/misq/2015/39.3.08 · Cited by 165
“Thus, reviews that are patterned after community norms are easy to communicate to others and can help establish reviewers’ reputations (Forman et al. 2008, Resnick et al. 2000).”
BackgroundUser-centered evaluation of adaptive and adaptable systems: a literature review
van Velsen, L., van der Geest, T., Klaassen, R., & Steehouder, M. F. (2008) · The Knowledge Engineering Review · doi:10.1017/s0269888908001379 · Cited by 177
Li, H. C., Clement, A., Wong, E. L., Napper, J., Roy, I., Alvisi, L., & Dahlin, M. D. (2006) · Operating Systems Design and Implementation · doi:10.5555/1298455.1298474 · Cited by 170
Li, W., Wu, J., Cao, J., Chen, N., Zhang, Q., & Buyya, R. (2021) · Journal of Cloud Computing Advances Systems and Applications · doi:10.1186/s13677-021-00247-5 · Cited by 192
Verity: a QoS metric for selecting web services and providers
Kalepu, S., Krishnaswamy, S. P., & Loke, S. W. (2004) · doi:10.1109/wisew.2003.1286795 · Cited by 169
Recommender Systems Research: A Connection-Centric Survey
Perugini, S., Gonçalves, M. A., & Fox, E. A. (2004) · Journal of Intelligent Information Systems · doi:10.1023/b:jiis.0000039532.05533.99 · Cited by 167
“Since 1997 recommender systems research has advanced in many directions, such as reputation systems (Resnick et al., 2000) (e.”
BackgroundHow Do Platforms Empower Consumers? Insights from the Affordances and Constraints of Reclame Aqui
Kozinets, R. V., Ferreira, D. A., & Chimenti, P. C. P. D. S. (2021) · Journal of Consumer Research · doi:10.1093/jcr/ucab014 · Cited by 179
Contributing high quantity and quality knowledge to online Q & A communities
Lou, J., Fang, Y., Lim, K. H., & Peng, J. Z. (2012) · Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.22750 · Cited by 176
A reputation-based trust model for peer-to-peer ecommerce communities [Extended Abstract]
Xiong, L., & Liu, L. (2003) · ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce (EC) · doi:10.1145/779928.779972 · Cited by 165
Graduate Theses and Dissertations
Davis, M., Davis, K. J., & Dunagan, M. M. (2012) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-384727-0.00006-9 · Cited by 165
Valentine, M., Retelny, D., To, A., Rahmati, N., Doshi, T. S., & Bernstein, M. S. (2017) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3025453.3025811 · Cited by 168
Tag-Aware Recommender Systems: A State-of-the-Art Survey
Zhang, Z., Zhou, T., & Zhang, Y. (2011) · Journal of Computer Science and Technology · doi:10.1007/s11390-011-0176-1 · Cited by 161
“rsity of data resulted from: (i) the huge number of items is far beyond user’s ability to evaluate even a small fraction of them; (ii) users do not incentively wish to rate the purchased/viewed items [12]. Besides the fundamental user-item relations, some accessorial information can be exploited to improve the algorit…”
BackgroundAltman, A., & Tennenholtz, M. (2005) · ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce (EC) · doi:10.1145/1064009.1064010 · Cited by 158
Electronic Commerce Customer Relationship Management: An Assessment of Research
Romano, N., & Fjermestad, J. L. (2001) · International Journal of Electronic Commerce · doi:10.1080/10864415.2001.11044232 · Cited by 163
Multiple gossip statements and their effect on reputation and trustworthiness
Sommerfeld, R. D., Krambeck, H.-J., & Milinski, M. (2008) · Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rspb.2008.0762 · Cited by 158
Continuance in Expertise-Sharing Networks: A Social Perspective
Tiwana, A., & Bush, A. A. (2005) · IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management · doi:10.1109/tem.2004.839956 · Cited by 160
“10The centrality of individual reputation to the functioning of collaborative networks of various types is also apparent in the design of earlier generations of collaborative systems such as recommendation systems [55], collaborative filtering systems [40], reputation aggregators [69], reputation management systems in…”
BackgroundChallenges for Robust Trust and Reputation Systems
Jøsang, A., & Golbeck, J. (2009) · Cited by 158
Jøsang, A., Keser, C., & Dimitrakos, T. (2005) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/11429760_7 · Cited by 157
“Reputation systems[38, 21] create word-of-mouth networks in online communities, and provide a quantitative measure of quality of service.”
BackgroundA Bargaining Model for a First-Time Interaction Under Asymmetric Beliefs of Supply Reliability
Gurnani, H., & Shi, M. (2006) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.1050.0498 · Cited by 157
“Online feedback mechanisms have been used in the consumer-to-consumer segment of the market (e.g., eBay), but even then, the quality of feedback is not reliable (Resnick et al. 2000).”
BackgroundPET: A PErsonalized Trust Model with Reputation and Risk Evaluation for P2P Resource Sharing
Liang, Z., & Shi, W. (2005) · Proceedings of the ... Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences/Proceedings of the Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences · doi:10.1109/hicss.2005.493 · Cited by 156
“…of the short-term behaviors and treat it as part of the trustworthiness. b) Reputation-based System: Centralized reputation systems is a very hot topic and has been widely deployed in e-commerce [2], [26], [32], such as eBay (an online auction site) and slashdot.com (an online tech-guru site).”
BackgroundEffects of feedback and peer pressure on contributions to enterprise social media
Brzozowski, M. J., Sandholm, T. E., & Hogg, T. (2009) · ACM International Conference on Supporting Group Work (GROUP) · doi:10.1145/1531674.1531684 · Cited by 156
“Markers of reputation are the bedrock of how peer-to-peer commercial transactions function on sites like eBay [29].”
BackgroundDetecting Fraudulent Personalities in Networks of Online Auctioneers
Chau, D. H., Pandit, S., & Faloutsos, C. (2006) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/11871637_14 · Cited by 153
“[13] summarized that today’s reputation systems face many challenges which include the difficulty to elicit honest feedback and to show faithful representations of users’ reputation.”
BackgroundThe Role of Reputation Systems in Reducing On-Line Auction Fraud
Gregg, D. G., & Scott, J. E. (2006) · International Journal of Electronic Commerce · doi:10.2753/jec1086-4415100304 · Cited by 147
Chandrasekharan, E., Samory, M., Srinivasan, A., & Gilbert, É. (2017) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3025453.3026018 · Cited by 153
“Answers, Facebook, Yik Yak and Slashdot [20, 30, 49, 50].”
BackgroundCrossmod: A Cross-Community Learning-based System to Assist Reddit Moderators
Chandrasekharan, E., Gandhi, C., Mustelier, M. W., & Gilbert, E. (2019) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3359276 · Cited by 151
“In the distributed approach, users up-vote desirable content making it more visible, and down-vote undesirable content, sometimes even reporting content [24, 41, 57, 58].”
BackgroundTo buy or not to buy: Influence of seller photos and reputation on buyer trust and purchase behavior
Bente, G., Baptist, O., & Leuschner, H. (2012) · International Journal of Human-Computer Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2011.08.005 · Cited by 150
CUSTOMER TRUST ONLINE: EXAMINING THE ROLE OF THE EXPERIENCE WITH THE WEB SITE
Koufaris, M., & Hampton-Sosa, W. (2002) · Cited by 150
Surfing a Web of Trust: Reputation and Reciprocity on CouchSurfing.com
Lauterbach, D., Truong, H., Shah, T., & Adamic, L. A. (2009) · doi:10.1109/cse.2009.345 · Cited by 154
“This is consistent with findings from other reputation systems, such as eBay [24].”
BackgroundResultOpinion Mining using Econometrics: A Case Study on Reputation Systems
Ghose, A., Ipeirotis, P. G., & Sundararajan, A. (2007) · Cited by 150
Examining temporary disposition and acquisition in peer-to-peer renting
Philip, H. E., Ozanne, L. K., & Ballantine, P. W. (2015) · Journal of Marketing Management · doi:10.1080/0267257x.2015.1013490 · Cited by 163
The Ironic Effect of Source Identification on the Perceived Credibility of Online Product Reviewers
Willemsen, L. M., Neijens, P. C., & Bronner, F. E. (2012) · Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication · doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2012.01598.x · Cited by 147
Consumer-perceived risk in e-commerce transactions
Salam, A. F., Rao, H. R., & Pegels, C. C. (2003) · Communications of the ACM · doi:10.1145/953460.953517 · Cited by 152
Analyzing the economic efficiency of eBay-like online reputation reporting mechanisms
Dellarocas, C. N. (2001) · ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce (EC) · doi:10.1145/501158.501177 · Cited by 178
“Analyzing the Economic Efficiency of eBay-like Online Reputation Reporting Mechanisms Chrysanthos Dellarocas Sloan School of Management Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, MA 02139, USA dell@mit.edu ABSTRACT This paper introduces a model for analyzing marketplaces, such as eBay, which rely on binary reput…”
The identification of deviance and its impact on retention in a multiplayer game
Grandprey-Shores, K., He, Y., Swanenburg, K. L., Kraut, R. E., & Riedl, J. (2014) · ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) · doi:10.1145/2531602.2531724 · Cited by 145
“Ratings persist from one interaction to the next, threatening to harm future interactions [25].”
BackgroundThe Effect of Linkedin on Deception in Resumes
Guillory, J. E., & Hancock, J. T. (2012) · Cyberpsychology Behavior and Social Networking · doi:10.1089/cyber.2011.0389 · Cited by 147
Technologies for Trust in Electronic Commerce
Patton, M. A., & Jøsang, A. (2003) · Electronic Commerce Research · doi:10.1023/b:elec.0000009279.89570.27 · Cited by 137
Suh, B., Ed, H., Kittur, A., & Pendleton, B. A. (2008) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/1357054.1357214 · Cited by 135
“Systems which store transaction logs can provide a rich data source for aggregate information that can provide a meaningful history to users and help them judge the trustworthiness of other users or information [7].”
BackgroundCastillo, C., & Davison, B. D. (2010) · now publishers, Inc. eBooks · doi:10.1561/1500000021 · Cited by 136
“Second, in many communities positive assessments are dominant, as people are much more cautious when providing negative judgments for fear of retaliatory negative feedback, or simply to avoid further unpleasant interactions [200].”
BackgroundYang, S., Shin, S., Joun, Y., & Koo, C. (2016) · Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing · doi:10.1080/10548408.2016.1251872 · Cited by 139
Briggs, P., Burford, B. C., Angeli, A. D., & Lynch, P. (2002) · Social Science Computer Review · doi:10.1177/08939302020003009 · Cited by 173
Reputation offsets trust judgments based on social biases among Airbnb users
Abrahão, B., Parigi, P., Gupta, A., & Cook, K. S. (2017) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1604234114 · Cited by 138
Malmendier, U. M., & Lee, Y. H. (2011) · American Economic Review · doi:10.1257/aer.101.2.749 · Cited by 132
Qu, Y., Khan, J., Su, Y., Tong, J., & Zhao, S. (2023) · Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services · doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2023.103534 · Cited by 240
Deng, Z., Hong, Z., Zhang, W., Evans, R. D., & Chen, Y. (2018) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/10170 · Cited by 133
“As the reputation of a person and/or website can help consumers and vendors make better decisions, communicate more effectively, and improve cooperation, it is now seen to play a major role in online service delivery [33].”
Factors influencing online auction repurchase intention
Yen, C., & Lu, H. (2008) · Internet Research · doi:10.1108/10662240810849568 · Cited by 127
“Some challenges remain exist in reputation systems (Resnick et al., 2000).”
BackgroundNonadiabatic Dynamics of Two Strongly Coupled Nanomechanical Resonator Modes
Faust, T., Rieger, J., Seitner, M. J., Krenn, P., Kotthaus, J. P., & Weig, E. M. (2012) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.109.037205 · Cited by 132
Fuller, M. A., Serva, M. A., & Benamati, J. ‘. (2007) · Decision Sciences · doi:10.1111/j.1540-5915.2007.00174.x · Cited by 126
Ozturk, A. B., Nusair, K., Okumuş, F., & Singh, D. (2017) · Information Systems Frontiers · doi:10.1007/s10796-017-9736-4 · Cited by 125
Ng, J. S., Lim, W. Y. B., Luong, N. C., Xiong, Z., Asheralieva, A., Niyato, D. T., Leung, C., & Miao, C. (2021) · IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials · doi:10.1109/comst.2021.3091684 · Cited by 151
“However, other aspects of heterogeneity such as the reputation [198] and the willingness to participate of the computing nodes are not taken into account.”
BackgroundCan you ever trust a wiki?: impacting perceived trustworthiness in wikipedia
Kittur, A., Suh, B., & Chi, E. H. (2008) · Proceedings of the 2008 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work · doi:10.1145/1460563.1460639 · Cited by 122
“It has been the subject of considerable research due to its importance in virtually all online interactions, ranging from e-commerce transactions to online discussion groups [11][12].”
BackgroundA blockchain-based Trust System for the Internet of Things
Pietro, R. D., Salleras, X., Signorini, M., & Waisbard, E. (2018) · ACM Symposium on Access Control Models and Technologies (SACMAT) · doi:10.1145/3205977.3205993 · Cited by 118
Consumer and Business Deception on the Internet: Content Analysis of Documentary Evidence
Grazioli, S., & Järvenpää, S. L. (2003) · International Journal of Electronic Commerce · doi:10.1080/10864415.2003.11044283 · Cited by 123
Survey of Trust Models in Different Network Domains
Momani, M., & Challa, S. (2010) · International Journal of Ad hoc Sensor & Ubiquitous Computing · doi:10.5121/ijasuc.2010.1301 · Cited by 120
“Among the motivating fields for the development of trust models is e-commerce, which necessitated the notion of judging how trusted an internet seller can be [39, 40].”
BackgroundP2P reputation management: Probabilistic estimation vs. social networks
Despotovic, Z., & Aberer, K. (2005) · Computer Networks · doi:10.1016/j.comnet.2005.07.003 · Cited by 120
“Keywords: P2P systems; Trust; Reputation; Social networks; Probabilistic estimation”
Analysis of ratings on trust inference in open environments
Liang, Z., & Shi, W. (2007) · Performance Evaluation · doi:10.1016/j.peva.2007.04.001 · Cited by 117
“Ratings (also known as recommendations) from our family members, friends and the people with high reputation are treated as reliable information sources, which are helpful and time-saving for human beings to explore the quality of other people or services.”
BackgroundMethodKleinberg, J. M., & Raghavan, P. (2005) · Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science · doi:10.1109/sfcs.2005.63 · Cited by 117
Utz, S., Matzat, U., & Snijders, C. (2009) · International Journal of Electronic Commerce · doi:10.2753/jec1086-4415130304 · Cited by 118
Trust and reputation for Internet of Things: Fundamentals, taxonomy, and open research challenges
Ahmed, A. I. A., Hamid, S. H. A., Gani, A., Khan, S., & Khan, M. K. (2019) · Journal of Network and Computer Applications · doi:10.1016/j.jnca.2019.102409 · Cited by 116
Understanding computer‐mediated interorganizational collaboration: a model and framework
Chi, L., & Holsapple, C. W. (2005) · Journal of Knowledge Management · doi:10.1108/13673270510582965 · Cited by 116
“…of interaction, institutional norms that define each other's behaviors (Zucker, 1986) and reputation that is established through a network of trusted third parties (Zucker, 1986; Resnick et al., 2000; Adler, 2001) may serve as effective governance mechanisms supplementing the classical contract.”
BackgroundLeveraging Philanthropic Behavior for Customer Support: The Case of user Support Forums1
Jabr, W., Mookerjee, R. V., Tan, Y., & Mookerjee, V. S. (2014) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.25300/misq/2014/38.1.09 · Cited by 113
Recommending trusted online auction sellers using social network analysis
Wang, J., & Chiu, C. (2007) · Expert Systems with Applications · doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2007.01.045 · Cited by 113
Gao, J. G., Zhang, Y., & Zhou, T. (2019) · Physics Reports · doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2019.05.002 · Cited by 122
“So far, there have been many computational reputation models [623] and many reputation systems for online services [624, 625].”
BackgroundThe influence of internet‐retailing factors on price expectations
Grewal, D., Munger, J. L., Iyer, G. R., & Levy, M. (2003) · Psychology and Marketing · doi:10.1002/mar.10083 · Cited by 110
Hanson, S., Jiang, L., & Dahl, D. W. (2018) · Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science · doi:10.1007/s11747-018-0617-2 · Cited by 108
Trust management and reputation systems in mobile participatory sensing applications: A survey
Mousa, H., Mokhtar, S. B., Hasan, O., Younes, O., Hadhoud, M., & Brunie, L. (2015) · Computer Networks · doi:10.1016/j.comnet.2015.07.011 · Cited by 111
“The expectation that people will consider one another’s pasts in future interactions constrains their behavior in the present [28, 82].”
Background
Metadata
- Authors
- Resnick, P., Kuwabara, K., Zeckhauser, R., & Friedman, E.
- Affiliations
- University of Michigan (US)
- Harvard University (US)
- Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey (US)
- Venue
- Communications of the ACM
- Published
- 2000-12
- Volume
- 43
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 45-48
- ISSN
- 0001-0782 (ISSN-L)
- 1557-7317
- OpenAlex
- W2337430557
- Cited by
- 2,190
- References
- 7
- Citations by year
- 2026: 38 · 2025: 32 · 2024: 37 · 2023: 33 · 2022: 36 · 2021: 52 · 2020: 58 · 2019: 66 · 2018: 66 · 2017: 87 · 2016: 87 · 2015: 93 · 2014: 110 · 2013: 111 · 2012: 134
- FWCI
- 145.25
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Communications of the ACM (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation (9977999)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Access Control and Trust
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Expert finding and Q&A systems
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Privacy, Security, and Data Protection
- Keywords
- reputation systems, online trust, online interaction, e-commerce, peer reputation
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-11, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-11 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
