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 2,001–2,100 of 2,164
Theoretical Background and Research Approach
Sandholz, S. (2016) · The urban book series · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-43735-4_2
eBay:" The world's largest online marketplace"-A Case Study
Gopalkrishnan, J., & Gupta, V. (2007)
Chapter 14 Incentive Mechanisms for Mobile Music Distribution
Furini, M., & Montangero, M. (2009)
Decision support for privacy auditing
Bănescu, S. (2012) · TU/e Research Portal
Is Your Neighbor a Traitor?Distributed Reputation Management in Member-Initiated Virtual Communities
Sarkio, K., & Mäntylä, M. (2006)
Park, J.-T. (2016) · Libraries and Cultural Resources (University of Calgary) · doi:10.11575/prism/24828
An Updated Look at the Factors Contributing to the Final Selling Price of Auctioned Gift Cards
Dulaney, E. A., & Wiese, M. D. (2017) · Journal of Internet Commerce · doi:10.1080/15332861.2017.1317147
“Even though one buyer may never buy from the same seller again, the feedback from them represents a reputation system “so important for fostering trust among strangers” (Resnick et al. 2000).”
BackgroundPelet, J., Pratt, M. A., & Fauvy, S. (2017) · Advances in e-business research series · doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-2469-4.ch001
Defining and Evaluating A Novel Penalty Model for Managing Violations in the Cloud Computing
Maarouf, A., Qacimy, B. E., Marzouk, A., et al. (2017) · International Journal of Grid and High Performance Computing · doi:10.4018/ijghpc.2017040103
An investigation of entrepreneurs' ethical values, social insurance, and start-up success in China
Shiu, K. W. B. (2014) · Research Portal (King's College London)
Transparency in Electronic Markets: A Unified FrameworkPreprint
Turan, M. (2009) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.1375099
The Development Trajectories of Platform Businesses - Trust as an Enabler of Sharing Based Exchange
Jaarinen, M. (2016) · Aaltodoc (Aalto University)
A novel iterative online rating attack based on market self-exciting property
Liu, Y., & Zhou, W. (2017) · IEEE International Conference on Acoustics Speech and Signal Processing · doi:10.1109/icassp.2017.7952529
“Advanced collusion attacks, where malicious IDs perform more diverse yet coordinate tasks, are proposed to further strengthen manipulation impact and to avoid being deected.”
BackgroundA Classification Taxonomy for Reputation and Trust Systems Applied to Virtual Organizations
Bilecki, L. F., & Fiorese, A. (2017) · IFIP advances in information and communication technology · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-65151-4_46
“According to Resnick et al. [9], reputation is a collective measure defined as a value generated through an aggregation methodology of a feedback collection and/or values related to the historical performance.”
European Union Information Law and the Sharing Economy
Easton, C. (2017) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-64955-9_7
Reputation Systems and Incentives Schemes for Quality Control in Crowdsourcing
Shavlovsky, M. (2017) · eScholarship (California Digital Library)
Howe, M.-S. (2017) · Evidence-Based Dentistry · doi:10.1038/sj.ebd.6401265
Eliminating the effect of rating bias on reputation systemsPreprint
Wu, L., Ren, Z.-M., Ren, X.-L., et al. (2018) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1801.05734
“Reputation systems arose as a result of the need for Internet users to gain trust in the individuals they transact with online [8, 9].”
BackgroundTechnical Aspects of Online Privacy
Ghiglieri, M., Simo, H., Waidner, M., & Darmstadt, T. U. (2012)
Identification for Strategically Malicious Participants
Fan, X., & Bi, J. (2018) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-94289-6_24
A model of a virtual community with a decentralized reputation-based peer evaluationPreprint
Olifer, A. (2017) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1710.07984
A Markov Decision Process Approach to Analyze Discount & Reputation Trade-offs in E-commerce Systems
Xie, H. L., & Lui, J. C. S. (2019) · ACM SIGMETRICS Performance Evaluation Review · doi:10.1145/3305218.3305221
“In particular, the feedback-based reputation system [4] is the most widely deployed.”
BackgroundMaintaining a permanent reputation with replacements
Ekmekçi, M., & Wilson, A. C. (2010) · Econstor (Econstor)
Ensuring Trust in One Time Exchanges: Solving the QoS ProblemPreprint
Huberman, B. A., Wu, F., & Zhang, L. (2005) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.cs/0512034
“A problem with reputations is that the time scales for their buildup or decay can be very long compared to the typical times involved in exchanges between a provider and a user [4, 9].”
BackgroundReputation Systems: An Axiomatic ApproachPreprint
Tennenholtz, M. (2012) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1207.4163
“(Dellarocas 2003; Resnick et al. 2000)) .”
BackgroundFlow-based reputation: more than just rankingPreprint
Simone, A., Škorić, B., & Zannone, N. (2012) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1203.1820
“Reputation systems are widely considered as ‘the solution’ to assess trust relationships among users and to identify and isolate malicious users [28].”
BackgroundDISARM: A Social Distributed Agent Reputation Model based on Defeasible LogicPreprint
Kravari, K., & Bassiliades, N. (2014) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1410.3334
“models help agents to decide who to trust, encouraging trustworthy behavior and deterring dishonest participation by providing the mean through which reputation and ultimately trust can be quantified [43]. Hence, as intelligent agents are gradually enriched with Semantic Web technology [18, 6, 5], acting on behalf of…”
BackgroundDTSRS: A Dynamic Trusted Set based Reputation System for Mobile Participatory Sensing Applications
Mousa, H., Hadhoud, M., Younes, O., et al. (2016) · IJCI International Journal of Computers and Information · doi:10.21608/ijci.2016.33953
“Among the classical solutions to deal with erroneous and malicious users is the notion of trust and reputation systems [8].”
BackgroundOnline Reputation Scoring from Historical Feedbacks Based on Partially-Ordered Similarity
Tang, Y. (2011) · Energy Procedia · doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2011.11.464
Modelling Stereotyping in Cooperation Systems
Bedewi, W., Whitaker, R. M., Colombo, G. B., Allen, S. M., & Dunham, Y. C. (2019) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-28377-3_10
Reputacja i zaufanie w systemach teleinformatycznych z podmiotami anonimowymi - podejście dynamiczne
Konorski, J. (2016) · Przegląd Telekomunikacyjny + Wiadomości Telekomunikacyjne · doi:10.15199/59.2016.8-9.1
Trading Discount for Reputation?
Xie, H. L., Ma, R. T. B., & Lui, J. C. S. (2016) · ACM SIGMETRICS Performance Evaluation Review · doi:10.1145/2964791.2901500
Design von Reputationssystemen auf Basis von Spieltheorie und Experimenteller Wirtschaftsforschung.
Ockenfels, A., & Rajko, A. (2009) · GI-Jahrestagung
Can intermediaries assure contracts? Experimental evidence
Mitzkewitz, M., & Neugebauer, T. M. (2020) · Games and Economic Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.geb.2020.08.004
Chen, H., Xiong, W., Xiong, P., et al. (2020) · Chinese Control Conference (CCC) · doi:10.23919/ccc50068.2020.9188557
“Resnick et al. (2000) studied the reputation system of feedback forum established by eBay, and analyzed the operation principle of the reputation system and its role in reducing dishonest transactions between buyers and sellers[5].”
BackgroundHybrid Trust Computational Model for M2M Application Services
Kim, Y. (2020) · Journal of Software Assessment and Valuation · doi:10.29056/jsav.2020.12.06
A Chord-based Recommender System
Sorge, C. (2007) · Conference on Local Computer Networks · doi:10.1109/lcn.2007.113
“One such way is the use of reputation systems [24].”
BackgroundThe Impact of Blockchain on Cybersecurity Management
Sibai, R. E., Challita, K., Abdo, J. B., et al. (2021) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-71381-2_7
An Experimental Trust and Reputation Algorithm for JPL’s Deep Space Network
Sievers, M., & Viswanathan, A. (2021) · ASCEND 2021 · doi:10.2514/6.2021-4083
MicroTrade, proposta de um sistema integrado de gestão para pequenas e médias empresas
Teixeira, L. S. S. (2013) · Portuguese National Funding Agency for Science, Research and Technology (RCAAP Project by FCT)
De l'utilisation des politiques de bandits manchots dans les systèmes de réputation
Vallée, T., Bonnet, G., & Bourdon, F. (2014) · HAL (Le Centre pour la Communication Scientifique Directe)
Augmenting Human Intelligence in Goal Oriented Tasks
García, A. C. B. (2011) · Studies in computational intelligence · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-20344-2_11
“The HYRIWYG is a new reputation mechanism [37] for providing users the right incentive when they voluntarily supply reliable evaluations that become the bases for recommender system (RS) suggestions.”
BackgroundLampinen, A. (2021) · Synthesis lectures on human-centered informatics · doi:10.2200/s01116ed1v01y202107hci051 · Cited by 1
(2013) · Auerbach Publications eBooks · doi:10.1201/b16048-19
User Trust and Human-Computer Trust Interaction
(2013) · Advances in information security, privacy, and ethics book series · doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-4765-7.ch007
Fichman, R. G. (2021) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.3875671 · Cited by 2
Beuscart, J.-S., Dagiral, É., & Parasie, S. (2019) · Armand Colin eBooks · doi:10.3917/arco.scart.2019.01.0207
Monahan, J., & Handler, B. (2017) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.2824666
Trust Management for Pervasive Social Networking
(2013) · Advances in information security, privacy, and ethics book series · doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-4765-7.ch006
Yoon, S.-K., & Haas, Z. J. (2011) · Wireless networks and mobile communications · doi:10.1201/b11309-3
Denning, P. J., & Malone, T. W. (2006) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/3-540-34874-3_16
Steinfield, C. W. (2007) · doi:10.1002/9781118256107.ch54
Challenges and Opportunities of Consumer Empowerment in Online Reputation Management
Vollero, A., & Siano, A. (2014) · IGI Global eBooks · doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-6114-1.ch079
Competition in Online Comparison Shopping Services
Saastamoinen, J. (2012) · IGI Global eBooks · doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-1861-9.ch011
Vannoy, S. A. (2012) · IGI Global eBooks · doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-0879-5.ch606
An Interactive System for Unfair Rating Detection Models in a Customized Perspective
Lv, K., Liu, Y., Chen, J., et al. (2021) · IEEE International Conference on Trust, Security and Privacy in Computing and Communications (TrustCom) · doi:10.1109/trustcom53373.2021.00123
Trust Management and User’s Trust Perception in e-Business
Costante, E., Petković, M., & den Hartog, J. (2013) · IGI Global eBooks · doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-2919-6.ch004
Effort-Accuracy Trade-Off in Using Knowledge Management Systems
Poston, R. S., & Speier, C. (2011) · IGI Global eBooks · doi:10.4018/978-1-60960-783-8.ch721
Monitoring Contributions Online: A Reputation System to Model Expertise in Online Communities
Hennis, T. (2011) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-22362-4_42
“An expectation that people will consider one another’s past constrains and motivates behavior in the present [15].”
BackgroundApplying Game Theory in Securing Wireless Sensor Networks by Minimizing Battery Usage
Asadi, M., Agah, A., & Zimmerman, C. (2017) · Game Theory · doi:10.4018/978-1-5225-2594-3.ch012
(2004) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-155860933-4/50040-7
Vannoy, S. A. (2013) · IGI Global eBooks · doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-0879-5.ch6.6
Trust Management and Its Challenges
(2013) · Advances in information security, privacy, and ethics book series · doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-4765-7.ch003
Modelos de reputação no Comércio Elet´ronico
Coelho, M., Gonçalves, M. J., & Pereira, R. H. (2022) · doi:10.56002/ceos.0061_cimne_1_2
Movahedkor, N., Bagheri, A., & Mirtaheri, S. L. (2022) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4130134
The Sharing Economy for a Public-Private Partnership
Ilbiz, E., & Kaunert, C. (2023) · Advanced sciences and technologies for security applications · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-20274-2_3
Detecting Collusive Agents by Trust Measures in Social IoT Environments: A Novel Reputation Model
Cotronei, M., Giuffré, S., Marcianò, A., et al. (2022) · Internet of things · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-21940-5_3
Network rumor governance scheme based on blockchain technology
Zeng, L., Le, Z., & Wu, H. (2023) · International Conference on Electronics and Devices, Computational Science (ICEDCS) · doi:10.1109/icedcs60513.2023.00013
Prasitsupparote, A., Pasitsuparoad, P., & Jungjit, S. (2024) · Joint International Conference on Digital Arts, Media and Technology with ECTI Northern Section Conference on Electrical, Electronics, Computer and Telecommunications Engineering (ECTI DAMT & NCON) · doi:10.1109/ectidamtncon60518.2024.10480075
“This third party authentication method is preferred by customers, increasing seller trust, selling volume and reputation [38].”
MethodWang, Y., Zheng, C., Li, Y., & Dao, C. (2024) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4783418
Designing Reputation Mechanisms for Online Labor Platforms: An Empirical Study
Bagnoud, A., Pätzmann, L.-M., & Bäck, A. (2024) · Lecture notes in information systems and organisation · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-52880-4_11
Online e-Reputation Management Services
Olariu, S., Aljohani, M., & Mukkamala, R. (2024) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-443-13223-0.00095-3
Towards Trust and Reputation as a Service in Society 5.0
Olariu, S., Mukkamala, R., & Aljohani, M. (2024) · Smart Cities · doi:10.3390/smartcities7050103
“…been argued that if buyers consistently provide truthful feedback, isolated interactions between buyers and sellers take on attributes of long-term relationships and, as a result, the reputation scores tallied by the marketplace become a high-quality substitute of community-based reputation [49].”
BackgroundA Secure Behavior Modelling for IoT Networks Using Blockchain
Qurashi, J. A., Singh, V., Keswani, B., Shandilya, S., Pandey, A. K., & Sharma, S. (2024) · Advances in educational technologies and instructional design book series · doi:10.4018/979-8-3693-8151-9.ch012
Chen, M., Bogner, K., & Großklags, J. (2025) · Digital Society · doi:10.1007/s44206-025-00171-0 · Cited by 1
“…Airbnb and Uber that collect, distribute and aggregate feedback about participants’ past behavior to foster trustworthy behavior among strangers (Resnick et al., 2000), the SCS is a government-led, nationwide system, purportedly focusing on building trust within Chinese society (State Council,…”
Gubanov, D. (2025) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-88036-0_2
Research on Negotiation Skills and Win-Win Strategies in Digital Trade Platforms
Zhang, T. (2024) · Transactions on Economics Business and Management Research · doi:10.62051/v475bv74
Díaz-Santacruz, C.-A., Zambrano, M. Á. N., Zárate-Guevara, D.-G., et al. (2024) · Revista Científica · doi:10.14483/23448350.22622
Document Valuation in LLM Summaries: A Cluster Shapley ApproachPreprint
Ye, Z., & Yoganarasimhan, H. (2025) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.5255982
Enhancing Reliability in Open Rating Systems: A Trust-Aware Filtering Approach
Zhang, J., Lamouchi, A., Labiod, H., & Korkotashvili, D. (2025) · Lecture notes of the Institute for Computer Sciences, Social Informatics and Telecommunications Engineering · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-94458-1_15
Altruism, Morality, and Social Solidarity
Benard, S., & Cho, S. (2025) · Handbooks of sociology and social research · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-93042-3_12 · Cited by 1
WhiteShield: A white-wash resilient blockchain-based trust management system
Alam, S., Zardari, S., Munawwar, M., et al. (2025) · SoftwareX · doi:10.1016/j.softx.2025.102385
Value Creation in Marketplace Platforms: A Business Model Approach
Zeamari, I. (2025) · Lecture notes in business information processing · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-08603-7_13
Enhancing RAFT Consensus With Network Reliability in Permissioned Blockchains
Peng, Y., & Huang, J. (2025) · IEEE Transactions on Reliability · doi:10.1109/tr.2025.3627300
“We adopt reputation, Rep i —a stronger metric combining subjective confidence [41] and objective evidence from historical behavior [42] to quantify the reliability of nodes.”
eImage: Elements and Effects of Positive Organizational Online Identity
Walczak, S. M., Gregg, D. G., Borkan, G. L., & Erskine, M. A. (2013) · Progress in IS · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-39747-9_37
Incentive Compatible Broadcast Protocols for Ad hoc Networks
Narahari, Y., Narayanam, R., Garg, D., et al. (2009) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-1-84800-938-7_5
A Decision Framework for Broker Selection in Smart Grids
Haghpanah, Y., Ketter, W., Desjardins, M. E., et al. (2013) · Lecture notes in business information processing · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-40864-9_5
“Trust and reputation has been widely studied [10,15,18,19,8].”
BackgroundEllis, R. M. (2008) · Open Access at Essex (University of Essex)
An Empirical Study of Tradera's Reputation System
Li, X. (2009) · KTH Publication Database DiVA (KTH Royal Institute of Technology)
Timmerman, P. (2014) · Theory and decision library. Series A, Philosophy and methodology of the social sciences · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-04262-6_8
Skoglund, A. (2014) · KTH Publication Database DiVA (KTH Royal Institute of Technology)
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
