The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 9 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Reputation systems
Open accessAbstract
T he Internet offers vast new opportunities to interact with total strangers. These interactions can be fun, informative, even profitable. But they also involve risk. Is the advice of a self-proclaimed expert at expertcentral.com reliable? Will an unknown dotcom site or eBay seller ship items promptly with appropriate packaging? Will the product be the same one described online?
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
30 Own interpretation · 10 No basis given · 5 Sources not found · 2 No full text of the sources
In the paper
“Nevertheless, the overall rate of successful transactions remains astonishingly high for a market as”
- Also stated in: § MARC MONGEAU · hedged
“ripe with the possibility of largescale fraud and deceit”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [5] 5. Kollock, P. The production of trust in online markets. In Advances in Group Processes, vol. 16, E. Lawler, M. Macy, S. Thyne, and H. Walker, Eds. JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, 1999; see also www.sscnet.ucla.edu/soc/f aculty/kollock/papers/online_trust.htm.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § MARC MONGEAU · hedged
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The first is that people may not bother to provide feedback at all.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Such premiums are observed in auctions in auctions of coins and computer chips on eBay [3,6,7].”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [3] 3. Bajari, P. and Hortacsu, A. Winner's curse, reserve prices, and endogenous entry: Empirical insights from eBay auctions; see www.stanford.edu/ ~bajari/wp/auction/ebay.pdf.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [6] 6. Lucking-Reiley, D., Bryan, D., Prasad, N., and Reeves, D. Pennies from eBay: The determinants of price in online auctions; see www.vanderbilt.edu/econ/reiley/papers/PenniesFromEBay.pdf.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [7] 7. Houser, D. and Wooders, J. Reputation in auctions: Theory and evidence from eBay; see bpa.arizona.edu/~jwooders/ebay.pdf.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Third is the difficulty of ensuring honest reports.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“these systems help people decide whom to trust, encourage trustworthy behavior, and deter participation by those who are unskilled or dishonest.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“these systems help people decide whom to trust, encourage trustworthy behavior, and deter participation by those who are unskilled or dishonest.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Reputation systems seek to establish the shadow of the future to each transaction by creating an expectation that other people will look back on it.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Game-theory analysis demonstrates that there are inherent limitations to the effectiveness of reputation systems when participants are allowed to start over with new names [4].”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [4] 4. Friedman, E. and Resnick, P. The social cost of cheap pseudonyms; see www.si.umich.edu/~presnick/papers/identifiers/index.html.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A second difficulty in distributing feedback stems from the lack of portability from system to system.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Second, the expectation of reciprocity or retaliation in future interactions creates an incentive for good behavior.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [2] 2. Axelrod, R. The Evolution of Cooperation. Basic Books, New York, 1984.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
- Probably not a substantial claim. 20
- It may state two separate claims as one. 10
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Despite their theoretical and practical difficulties, it is reassuring that reputation systems appear to perform reasonably well.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: eBay's high rate of successful transactions is attributable to its reputation system.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“At eBay, for example, a stream of buyers interacts with the same seller.They may never buy an item from the seller again, but by sharing their opinions about the seller via the Feedback Forum, they construct a meaningful history of the seller.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If buyers do behave this way, the sellers' reputations will affect their future sales.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Despite this promise, significant challenges remain in the operating phases of such systems: eliciting, distributing, and aggregating feedback.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Over time, high-quality sellers would desert the market.Eventually, only the lowest-quality sellers would remain, a dynamic economist George Akerlof memorialized as the”
- Also stated in: § MARC MONGEAU · plain
“market for lemons”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [1] 1. Akerlof, G. The market for 'lemons': Quality uncertainty and the market mechanism. Quart. J. Econom. 84 (1970), 488-500. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § MARC MONGEAU · plain
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Even then, fear of retaliatory negative feedback or simply a desire to avoid further unpleasant interactions may keep a dissatisfied buyer quiet.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Systems that rely on the participation of large numbers of individuals accumulate trust simply by operating effectively over time.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For example, sellers with stellar reputations may enjoy a premium on their services; some users may be willing to pay for the security and comfort of high-quality services.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In terms of building trust, a boost in the quantity of information compensates for a significant reduction in its quality.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“In particular, newcomers (those with no feedback) should always be distrusted until they have somehow paid their dues, either through an entry fee or by accepting more risk or worse prices while developing their reputations.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [4] 4. Friedman, E. and Resnick, P. The social cost of cheap pseudonyms; see www.si.umich.edu/~presnick/papers/identifiers/index.html.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These simple numerical ratings fail to convey important subtleties of online interactions; for example, Did the feedback come from low-value transactions?What were the reputations of the people providing the feedback?”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Internet services operate on a vastly larger scale”
- Also stated in: § MARC MONGEAU · plain
“than Main Street and permit virtually anonymous interactions.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § MARC MONGEAU · plain
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“• Long-lived entities that inspire an expectation of future interaction;”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Today's reputation systems, by contrast, shouldn't work in theory.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“• Use of feedback to guide trust decisions.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“With clear reputation markers, low-quality sellers get lower prices, leaving a healthier market with a variety of prices and quality of service.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Prior to the Internet, such questions were answered, in part, through personal and corporate reputations.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Strangers lack known past histories or the prospect of future interaction, and they are not subject to a network of informed individuals who would punish bad and reward good behavior.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These interactions can be fun, informative, even profitable.But they also involve risk.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“• Capture and distribution of feedback about current interactions (such information must be visible in the future); and”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The Internet can vastly accelerate and add structure to the process of capturing and distributing information.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“One party could blackmail another, threatening to post negative feedback unrelated to actual performance.At the other extreme, in order to accumulate positive feedback, a group of sellers might collaborate and rate one another positively, artificially inflating their individual reputations.”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Future buyers, lacking personal histories with particular sellers, may still base their buying decisions on a sufficiently extensive public history.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“When agreeing to be rated is optional (such as when registering as a retailer at bizrate.com), doing so is likely an indication of higher-quality services, even before ratings are available.”
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Even if all reporting were complete and honest, users would find it virtually impossible to utilize the torrents of information they receive on other participants, given the lack of satisfactory summary statistics.”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Limited distribution of feedback limits its effectiveness; the future casts a shadow on only a single online arena, not on many.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The authors state this as an assumption.
Buyers provide and rely on feedback in reputation systems.
“provide and rely on feedback-isolated interactions take on attributes of long-term relationships.”
The paper relies on this without support.
eBay's high rate of successful transactions is attributable to its reputation system.
“The high rate of successful transactions is attributerd by eBay to its reputation system, called the Feedback Forum.”
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Resnick et al. (2000) stated that the lack of reputation portability is problematic as ''[l]imited distribution of feedback limits its effectiveness'' (p. 48).”
From In Stars We Trust – A Note on Reputation Portability Between Digital Platforms (2022) · cites this paper as Resnick et al. 2000
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Past research has argued that reputation systems and user-generated reviews may have the primary purpose of allowing users to learn more about each other before engaging in any interactions or transactions, acting as a monitoring and policing system [5,66,67].”
From Digital Identity: The effect of trust and reputation information on user judgement in the Sharing Economy (2018) · cites this paper as [67]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“The growth of e-auctions and other forms of e-commerce is based, to a considerable degree, on reputation and trust 5-10 .”
From Evolution of indirect reciprocity (2005) · cites this paper as [9]
Citations
Cites
The Market for "Lemons": Quality Uncertainty and the Market Mechanism
Akerlof, G. A. (1970) · The Quarterly Journal of Economics · doi:10.2307/1879431 · Cited by 23,016
Axelrod, R., & Hamilton, W. D. (1981) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.7466396 · Cited by 20,065
Nielsen, R. P., & Axelrod, R. (1985) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/257983 · Cited by 6,517
The Winner's Curse, Reserve Prices, and Endogenous Entry: Empirical Insights from eBay Auctions
Bajari, P., Hortaçsu, A., & Hortacsu, A. (2003) · The RAND Journal of Economics · doi:10.2307/1593721 · Cited by 1,041
PENNIES FROM EBAY: THE DETERMINANTS OF PRICE IN ONLINE AUCTIONS*
Lucking‐Reiley, D., Bryan, D., Prasad, N., & Reeves, D. M. (2007) · Journal of Industrial Economics · doi:10.1111/j.1467-6451.2007.00309.x · Cited by 550
(1999) · Advances in group processes · Cited by 426
Lawler, E. J., & Thye, S. R. (2000) · Advances in group processes · doi:10.1016/s0882-6145(2000)17 · Cited by 247
How not to build an online market: the sociology of market microstructure
Kollock, P., & Braziel, E. R. (n.d.) · Advances in Group Processes · doi:10.1016/s0882-6145(06)23011-x
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 201–300 of 2,164
How oversight improves member-maintained communities
Cosley, D., Frankowski, D., Kiesler, S. B., Terveen, L., & Riedl, J. (2005) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/1054972.1054975 · Cited by 109
“, [20]), social proxies (e.”
Sustainable reputations with rating systems
Ekmekci, M. (2011) · Journal of Economic Theory · doi:10.1016/j.jet.2010.02.015 · Cited by 109
To whom should I listen? Finding reputable reviewers in opinion-sharing communities
Ku, Y.-C., Wei, C., & Hsiao, H. (2012) · Decision Support Systems · doi:10.1016/j.dss.2012.03.003 · Cited by 109
Ogink, T., & Dong, J. Q. (2017) · Technological Forecasting and Social Change · doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2017.07.029 · Cited by 110
Analyzing the Bitcoin Ponzi Scheme Ecosystem
Vasek, M., & Moore, T. (2019) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-662-58820-8_8 · Cited by 118
Information filtering via Iterative Refinement
Laureti, P., Moret, L., Zhang, Y.-C., et al. (2006) · Europhysics Letters (EPL) · doi:10.1209/epl/i2006-10204-8 · Cited by 109
Cui, J., Zhang, X., Zhong, H., et al. (2019) · IEEE Internet of Things Journal · doi:10.1109/jiot.2019.2895136 · Cited by 108
“Existing reputation score calculation methods mainly use weighted sums [4], Bayesian neutron networks [5], reputation heuristic algorithms [32], or Google PageRank algorithm [33].”
MethodExploring the WOW in online-auction feedback
Weinberg, B. D., & Davis, L. (2005) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2004.06.004 · Cited by 108
Why do people read reviews posted on consumer-opinion portals?
Burton, J., & Khammash, M. (2010) · Journal of Marketing Management · doi:10.1080/02672570903566268 · Cited by 107
Briggs, P., Burford, B. C., Angeli, A. D., et al. (2002) · Social Science Computer Review · doi:10.1177/089443930202000309 · Cited by 106
“Provide clearly stated policies concerning, inter alia, security and privacy statements, rights to compensation, and return (Cheskin Research, 1999; Egger, 2000; Schneiderman, 2000).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialUsing Blockchain in a Reputation-Based Model for Grouping Agents in the Internet of Things
Fortino, G., Messina, F., Rosaci, D., & Sarnè, G. M. L. (2019) · IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management · doi:10.1109/tem.2019.2918162 · Cited by 106
“To this regard, as stated in [44], any reputation system should satisfy some main properties.”
BackgroundHow online word‐of‐mouth impacts receivers
Moore, S. G., & Lafreniere, K. C. (2019) · Consumer Psychology Review · doi:10.1002/arcp.1055 · Cited by 117
Managing Knowledge and Managing Knowledge Work: What we know and what the Future holds
Newell, S. (2014) · Journal of Information Technology · doi:10.1057/jit.2014.12 · Cited by 108
“However, we also know that such rating systems can be ‘ gamed ’ (Resnick et al. , 2000) especially when they are based on anonymous reviews (Scott and Orlikowski, 2012), suggesting that they are not a fool-proof way of improving the validity of the content of a KMS.”
BackgroundComparative study of trust and reputation systems for wireless sensor networks
Khalid, O., Khan, S. U., Madani, S. A., Khizar Hayat, A., Khan, M. I., Min‐Allah, N., Kołodziej, J., Wang, L., Zeadally, S., & Chen, D. (2012) · Security and Communication Networks · doi:10.1002/sec.597 · Cited by 105
Varieties of user-centredness: an analysis of four systems development methods
Iivari, J., & Iivari, N. (2010) · Information Systems Journal · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2575.2010.00351.x · Cited by 116
FR trust: a fuzzy reputation-based model for trust management in semantic P2P grids
Javanmardi, S., Shojafar, M., Shariatmadari, S., et al. (2014) · International Journal of Grid and Utility Computing · doi:10.1504/ijguc.2015.066397 · Cited by 103
“This helps in reaching recommendations and opinions about the quality and persistence of transactions [17, 18].”
BackgroundReputation and Uncertainty in Online Markets: An Experimental Study
Rice, S. C. (2011) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.1110.0362 · Cited by 99
“Studies specifically focusing on electronic reputation systems show these mechanisms to be effective in building trust and cooperation in online communities (Resnick et al. 2000, Dellarocas 2003).”
BackgroundThe Digitization of Word-of-Mouth: Promise and Challenges of Online Reputation Systems
Dellarocas, C. N. (2001) · Cited by 102
Information filtering via Iterative Refinement
Laureti, P., Moret, L., Yu, Y. K., et al. (2006) · reroDoc Digital Library · Cited by 102
Owning, Using, and Renting: Some Simple Economics of the “Sharing Economy”
Filippas, A., Horton, J. J., & Zeckhauser, R. (2020) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.2019.3396 · Cited by 99
Self-citationSocial transparency in networked information exchange: a theoretical framework
Stuart, H. C., Dabbish, L., Kiesler, S., Kinnaird, P., & Kang, R. (2012) · Proceedings of the ACM 2012 conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work · doi:10.1145/2145204.2145275 · Cited by 100
“…quality will improve or creativity will decline, whether Accountability : Names and virtual identifiers aid in developing a reputation [44,61] Image maintenance : Virtual identifiers provide control over people’s self presentation [24] Profile information (e.g., demographic, historic…”
BackgroundA novel reputation computation model based on subjective logic for mobile ad hoc networks
Liu, Y., Li, K., Jin, Y., et al. (2010) · Future Generation Computer Systems · doi:10.1016/j.future.2010.03.006 · Cited by 99
“…116029, China ‡School of Information Science and Technology Dalian University of Technology No 1, Linghai Road, Dalian, 116026, China Corresponding author: Keqiu Li (keqiu@dlut.edu.cn) Abstract—Selfish behaviors significantly affect the overall performance of mobile ad hoc networks (MANETs).”
BackgroundContracting With Uncertain Level Of Trust
Braynov, S., & Sandholm, T. (2002) · Computational Intelligence · doi:10.1111/1467-8640.00200 · Cited by 99
Security of Online Reputation Systems: The evolution of attacks and defenses
Sun, Y. L., & Liu, Y. (2012) · IEEE Signal Processing Magazine · doi:10.1109/msp.2011.942344 · Cited by 94
“The interactions can be fun, informative , and even profitable [1].”
CloudFog: Leveraging Fog to Extend Cloud Gaming for Thin-Client MMOG with High Quality of Service
Lin, Y., & Shen, H. (2016) · IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems · doi:10.1109/tpds.2016.2563428 · Cited by 96
Collier, B. C., & Hampshire, R. C. (2010) · ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) · doi:10.1145/1718918.1718955 · Cited by 97
Li, W., Meng, W., & Kwok, L. F. (2021) · IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials · doi:10.1109/comst.2021.3139052 · Cited by 101
“e, distinguishing benign and malicious entities) [182].”
Li, W., Meng, W., Kwok, L. F., & Ip, H. H. S. (2016) · Journal of Network and Computer Applications · doi:10.1016/j.jnca.2016.09.014 · Cited by 99
Analysis of a reputation system for Mobile Ad-Hoc Networks with liars
Mundinger, J., & Boudec, J. L. (2007) · Performance Evaluation · doi:10.1016/j.peva.2007.05.004 · Cited by 96
SORT: A Self-ORganizing Trust Model for Peer-to-Peer Systems
Can, A. B., & Bhargava, B. (2012) · IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing · doi:10.1109/tdsc.2012.74 · Cited by 93
“Resnick et al. [19] discuss that ensuring long-lived relationships, forcing feedbacks, checking honesty of recommendations are some difficulties in reputation systems.”
BackgroundDirichlet-Based Trust Management for Effective Collaborative Intrusion Detection Networks
Fung, C., Zhang, J., Aib, I., & Boutaba, R. (2011) · IEEE Transactions on Network and Service Management · doi:10.1109/tnsm.2011.050311.100028 · Cited by 93
“2) Newcomer attacks: occur when a malicious peer can easily register as a new user [10].”
BackgroundSearch, Matching, and the Role of Digital Marketplace Design in Enabling Trade: Evidence from AirbnbPreprint
Fradkin, A. (2017) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.2939084 · Cited by 96
Toward a Community-Oriented Design of Internet Platforms
Stanoevska‐Slabeva, K. (2002) · International Journal of Electronic Commerce · doi:10.1080/10864415.2002.11044244 · Cited by 93
Trust Management for Host-Based Collaborative Intrusion Detection
Fung, C., Baysal, O., Zhang, J., Aib, I., & Boutaba, R. (2008) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-540-87353-2_9 · Cited by 93
“Newcomer attacks occur when a malicious node can easily register as a new user [8].”
BackgroundAn Iterative Algorithm for Trust Management and Adversary Detection for Delay-Tolerant Networks
Ayday, E., & Fekri, F. (2011) · IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing · doi:10.1109/tmc.2011.160 · Cited by 92
Antony, S., Lin, Z., & Xu, B. (2006) · Decision Support Systems · doi:10.1016/j.dss.2006.04.012 · Cited by 93
“Reputation can signal the trustworthiness of sellers and the risk in online transactions with them [39].”
BackgroundSurcharges and Seller Reputation
Cheema, A. (2008) · Journal of Consumer Research · doi:10.1086/529532 · Cited by 87
Adaptive Reputation-Based Scheduling on Unreliable Distributed Infrastructures
Sonnek, J., Chandra, A., & Weissman, J. (2007) · IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems · doi:10.1109/tpds.2007.1094 · Cited by 92
“Numerous computing infrastructures have been designed to utilize idle distributed resources.”
BackgroundSmari, W. W., Clemente, P., & Lalande, J.-F. (2013) · Future Generation Computer Systems · doi:10.1016/j.future.2013.05.010 · Cited by 91
The Sustainability of Polycentric Information Commons1
Mindel, V., Mathiassen, L., & Rai, A. (2018) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.25300/misq/2018/14015 · Cited by 90
Ruiz-Alba, J., Abou-Foul, M., Nazarian, A., & Foroudi, P. (2021) · Information Technology and People · doi:10.1108/itp-07-2021-0572 · Cited by 100
Secure and reliable routing protocols for heterogeneous multihop wireless networks
Mahmoud, M. M. E. A., Lin, X. S., & Shen, X. (2013) · IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems · doi:10.1109/tpds.2013.138 · Cited by 90
“For the newcomer attack, the attackers can change their identities when their trust values degrade if they can easily register as new users [21].”
BackgroundWhen Boastful Word of Mouth Helps versus Hurts Social Perceptions and Persuasion
Packard, G. M., Gershoff, A. D., & Wooten, D. B. (2016) · Journal of Consumer Research · doi:10.1093/jcr/ucw009 · Cited by 89
Identity crisis: anonymity vs reputation in P2P systems
Marti, S., & García-Molina, H. (2004) · International Conference on Peer-to-Peer Computing · doi:10.1109/ptp.2003.1231513 · Cited by 88
“The longer this period of time, and the more resistant the identity is to spoofing, the more accurately the reputation system can rate nodes [13].”
BackgroundSelf-Interest, Reciprocity, and Participation in Online Reputation SystemsPreprint
Dellarocas, C. N., Fan, M., & Wood, C. (2004) · SSRN Electronic Journal · Cited by 88
A Multimedia Recommender System
Albanese, M., d’Acierno, A., Moscato, V., et al. (2013) · ACM Transactions on Internet Technology · doi:10.1145/2532640 · Cited by 88
“The ranking of agents based on other agents’ input is fundamental to multi-agent systems [Resnick et al. 2000] and it has become a central element of a variety of applications, where perhaps the most famous examples are Google’s PageRank algorithm [Page et al.”
BackgroundHow Often Should Reputation Mechanisms Update a Trader's Reputation Profile?
Dellarocas, C. N. (2006) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.1060.0092 · Cited by 87
“Reputation mechanisms have become an important component of electronic markets, helping to build trust and elicit cooperation among loosely connected and geographically dispersed economic agents (Resnick et al. 2000; Dellarocas 2003).”
BackgroundChapter 13 Reputation Mechanisms
Dellarocas, C. N. (2006) · Handbooks in information systems · doi:10.1016/s1574-0145(06)01013-0 · Cited by 82
Avoiding ballot stuffing in eBay-like reputation systems
Bhattacharjee, R. K., & Goel, A. (2005) · doi:10.1145/1080192.1080203 · Cited by 84
Reily, K., Finnerty, P. L., & Terveen, L. (2009) · International ACM SIGGROUP Conference on Supporting Group Work (GROUP) · doi:10.1145/1531674.1531692 · Cited by 87
Robust Reputation-Based Ranking on Bipartite Rating Networks
Li, R.-H., Yu, J. X., Huang, X., & Cheng, H. (2012) · SIAM International Conference on Data Mining · doi:10.1137/1.9781611972825.53 · Cited by 89
“Reputation system: Our work is also closely related to the reputation system [28, 33, 27].”
BackgroundAxiomatic Foundations for Ranking Systems
Altman, A., & Tennenholtz, M. (2008) · Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research · doi:10.1613/jair.2306 · Cited by 86
“[22]).”
Dynamic and Privacy-Preserving Reputation Management for Blockchain-Based Mobile Crowdsensing
Zhao, K., Tang, S., Zhao, B., & Wu, Y. (2019) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2019.2920922 · Cited by 83
“In the literature, the reputation management scheme is a fast and effective method to solve this problem [23], many relevant approaches targeting different privacy requirement have been proposed [21], [22].”
MethodUser interface features influencing overall ease of use and personalization
Kumar, R. L., Smith, M. A., & Bannerjee, S. (2003) · Information & Management · doi:10.1016/s0378-7206(03)00075-2 · Cited by 86
The design of a reliable reputation system
Swamynathan, G., Almeroth, K. C., & Zhao, B. Y. (2010) · Electronic Commerce Research · doi:10.1007/s10660-010-9064-y · Cited by 84
“Resnick et al. present an excellent introduction to the area of reputation systems [44].”
BackgroundManipulation-Resistant Reputation Systems
Friedman, E., Resnick, P., & Sami, R. (2007) · Algorithmic Game Theory · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511800481.029 · Cited by 85
Self-citationThe Dimensions of Reputation in Electronic MarketsPreprint
Ghose, A., Ipeirotis, P. G., & Sundararajan, A. (2006) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.885568 · Cited by 87
“3 Although it is implicit in our empirical approach, we do not explicitly address the fact that reputation also builds trust between traders (see, for instance, Resnick et al. (2000), Ba and Pavlou (2002), and Ba (2001)).”
Attacks on Trust Evaluation in Distributed Networks
Sun, Y. L., Han, Z., Yu, W., & Liu, K. R. (2006) · Conference on Information Sciences and Systems · doi:10.1109/ciss.2006.286695 · Cited by 87
“Trust evaluation systems also suffer from sybil attacks [19] and newcomer attacks [20].”
BackgroundIntegrating trust measures in multiagent systems
Rosaci, D., Sarnè, G. M. L., & Garruzzo, S. (2011) · International Journal of Intelligent Systems · doi:10.1002/int.20513 · Cited by 82
Robust and scalable trust management for collaborative intrusion detection
Fung, C., Zhang, J., Aib, I., & Boutaba, R. (2009) · IFIP/IEEE International Symposium on Integrated Network Management (IM) · doi:10.1109/inm.2009.5188784 · Cited by 81
“occur when a malicious peer can easily register as a new user [8].”
BackgroundManaging Violations in Service Level Agreements
RANA, O. F., Warnier, M., Quillinan, T. B., Brazier, F. M. T., & Cojocarasu, D. I. (2008) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-0-387-78446-5_23 · Cited by 78
“…provisioning: provisioning of a service meets some of the SLOs – that is, some of the SLO constraints must be satisfied for a successful delivery of a service; ‘Weighted Partial’ provisioning: provision of a service meets SLOs that have a weighting greater than a threshold…”
BackgroundMüller, R. M., Kijl, B., & Martens, J. K. J. (2011) · Journal of theoretical and applied electronic commerce research · doi:10.4067/s0718-18762011000200007 · Cited by 79
“Reputation building can be further promoted by a reputation system that aggregates ratings of other market participants regarding the quality of apps and makes them public among the potential buyers [11], [13], [19], [33].”
BackgroundJensen, C., Davis, J., & Farnham, S. D. (2002) · ACM SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI) · doi:10.1145/503376.503456 · Cited by 79
“Reputation systems are used in many online settings, but thus far only short overviews [15] and comparative analyses of different systems [17] have appeared.”
BackgroundEliciting Honest Feedback in Electronic MarketsPreprint
Miller, N., Resnick, P., & Zeckhauser, R. (2002) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.348940 · Cited by 77
Self-citationIncentives and rewarding in social computing
Šćekić, O., Truong, H., & Dustdar, S. (2013) · Communications of the ACM · doi:10.1145/2461256.2461275 · Cited by 78
Multi-dimensional evidence-based trust management with multi-trusted paths
Wang, G., & Wu, J. (2010) · Future Generation Computer Systems · doi:10.1016/j.future.2010.04.015 · Cited by 78
Lin, Z., Li, D., Janamanchi, B., et al. (2004) · Decision Support Systems · doi:10.1016/j.dss.2004.07.006 · Cited by 78
“Keywords: Online auction market; Reputation; Market structure; Lognormal distribution; Gibrat’s law; Entry and exit”
BackgroundReputation = f(user ranking, compliance, verity)
Kalepu, S., Krishnaswamy, S. P., & Loke, S. W. (2004) · doi:10.1109/icws.2004.93 · Cited by 78
Analyzing the Economic Efficiency of Ebay-Like Online Reputation Reporting MechanismsPreprint
Dellarocas, C. N. (2001) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.289968 · Cited by 78
Kuwabara, K. (2015) · American Journal of Sociology · doi:10.1086/681231 · Cited by 85
Self-citationA typology of complaints about eBay sellers
Gregg, D. G., & Scott, J. E. (2008) · Communications of the ACM · doi:10.1145/1330311.1330326 · Cited by 77
Online Trust: Definition and Principles
Aljazzaf, Z. M., Perry, M., & Capretz, M. A. M. (2010) · International Multi-Conference on Computing in the Global Information Technology (ICCGI) · doi:10.1109/iccgi.2010.17 · Cited by 80
“An entity can be identified by its properties such as name, identification, picture, signature, store location, and stated policies [2][3].”
BackgroundBasili, M., & Rossi, M. A. (2019) · Electronic Commerce Research and Applications · doi:10.1016/j.elerap.2019.100835 · Cited by 76
Secure multiparty computations on Bitcoin
Andrychowicz, M., Dziembowski, S., Malinowski, D., & Mazurek, Ł. (2016) · Communications of the ACM · doi:10.1145/2896386 · Cited by 78
“76 COMMUNICATIONS OF THE ACM | APRIL 2016 | VOL. 59 | NO. 4”
Self-Policing Mobile Ad Hoc Networks
Boudec, J. L., & Buchegger, S. (2004) · CRC Press eBooks · doi:10.1201/9780203504086.ch20 · Cited by 75
Moeller, K. K., Munksgaard, R., & Demant, J. (2017) · American Behavioral Scientist · doi:10.1177/0002764217734269 · Cited by 73
“Process-based control revolves around the review mechanism, also referred to as the reputation systems (Resnick, Kuwabara, Zeckhauser, & Friedman, 2000).”
BackgroundA localized certificate revocation scheme for mobile ad hoc networks
Arboit, G., Crépeau, C., Davis, C. R., & Maheswaran, M. (2006) · Ad Hoc Networks · doi:10.1016/j.adhoc.2006.07.003 · Cited by 73
“Each of these cryptographic tools has its particular advantages and drawbacks; for example, security schemes involving symmetric-key cryptography are much less computationally exhaustive than those involving digital certificates or threshold cryptography.”
BackgroundMobiSense — mobile network services for coordinated participatory sensing
Reddy, S., Samanta, V., Burke, J., et al. (2009) · International Symposium on Autonomous Decentralized Systems · doi:10.1109/isads.2009.5207328 · Cited by 73
“Tracking user reputation is not new - in fact its been widely and employed on the Internet to track whether to trust a user for transactions (EBay,) or in providing sound input to a system (Yahoo Answers, Amazon MTurk) [9].”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialMotives for reading and articulating user-generated restaurant reviews on Yelp.com
Parikh, A. A., Behnke, C., Vorvoreanu, M., Almanza, B. A., & Nelson, D. (2014) · Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Technology · doi:10.1108/jhtt-04-2013-0011 · Cited by 73
Electronic Helping Behavior: The Virtual Presence of Others Makes a Difference
Blair, C. A., Thompson, L. F., & Wuensch, K. L. (2005) · Basic and Applied Social Psychology · doi:10.1207/s15324834basp2702_8 · Cited by 74
An NFR Pattern Approach to Dealing with NFRs
Supakkul, S., Hill, T., Chung, L., et al. (2010) · IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE) · doi:10.1109/re.2010.31 · Cited by 72
“The credential information is adapted from design patterns [11] and the reputation systems [12] to provide social-based confidence on the pattern that may be judged by the credibility of the authors, sources of knowledge, endorsements or opinions. or known uses of the knowledge or pattern.”
BackgroundReverse auctions for relationship marketers
Daly, S. P., & Nath, P. (2004) · Industrial Marketing Management · doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2004.07.013 · Cited by 72
Signalling reputation in international online markets
Reuber, A. R., & Fischer, E. M. (2009) · Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal · doi:10.1002/sej.79 · Cited by 72
Flanagin, A. J. (2007) · New Media & Society · doi:10.1177/1461444807076966 · Cited by 71
“To be most effective, credentialing takes place among those with long-term relationships and the expectation of future interaction, is captured and distributed in a manner that makes feedback visible to others in the future, and is used to guide ‘trust decisions’ (Resnick et al., 2000).”
BackgroundA Bayesian network based Qos assessment model for web services
Wu, G., Wei, J. F., Qiao, X., et al. (2007) · IEEE International Conference on Services Computing · doi:10.1109/scc.2007.1 · Cited by 71
Liu, Y., Xiong, Z., Hu, Q., Niyato, D. T., Zhang, J., Miao, C., Leung, C., & Tian, Z. (2022) · IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology · doi:10.1109/tvt.2022.3198004 · Cited by 70
“A general feedback-based reputation system is composed by three main components: feedback collection, feedback aggregation, and reputation propagation, which are managed by a trusted-third party or platform [22].”
BackgroundExamining Trust, Forgiveness and Regret as Computational Concepts
Marsh, S., & Briggs, P. (2009) · Human-computer interaction series · doi:10.1007/978-1-84800-356-9_2 · Cited by 70
Evolutionary cyber-psychology: Applying an evolutionary framework to Internet behavior
Piazza, J. R., & Bering, J. M. (2009) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2009.07.002 · Cited by 74
“One answer is that many online markets rely on electronic reputation or ''feedback " systems to promote trust (Bolton, Katok, & Ockenfels, 2004; Resnick et al., 2000).”
BackgroundIn praise of forgiveness: Ways for repairing trust breakdowns in one-off online interactions
Vasalou, A., Hopfensitz, A., & Pitt, J. V. (2008) · International Journal of Human-Computer Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2008.02.001 · Cited by 70
“The elicitation of feedback is considered to be one of the prevailing challenges of these systems (Resnick et al., 2000).”
BackgroundResultInfluentialIdentity effects in social media
Taylor, S. J., Muchnik, L., Kumar, M., & Aral, S. (2022) · Nature Human Behaviour · doi:10.1038/s41562-022-01459-8 · Cited by 89
PathTrust: A Trust-Based Reputation Service for Virtual Organization Formation
Kerschbaum, F., Haller, J., Karabulut, Y., et al. (2006) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/11755593_15 · Cited by 69
“in [11] classified the most co mmon forms of attacks on reputation systems like badmouthing, liars or collusion att acks.”
BackgroundCombating online in-auction fraud: Clues, techniques and challenges
Dong, F., Shatz, S. M., & Xu, H. (2009) · Computer Science Review · doi:10.1016/j.cosrev.2009.09.001 · Cited by 69
“, eBay, is debatable [52-55].”
Parental Awareness and Use of Online Physician Rating Sites
Hanauer, D. A., Zheng, K., Singer, D., Gebremariam, A., & Davis, M. M. (2014) · PEDIATRICS · doi:10.1542/peds.2014-0681 · Cited by 69
Measuring user perceptions of Web site reputation
Toms, E. G., & Taves, A. (2003) · Information Processing & Management · doi:10.1016/j.ipm.2003.08.007 · Cited by 69
A Dynamic Social Feedback System to Support Learning and Social Interaction in Higher Education
Thoms, B. (2011) · IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies · doi:10.1109/tlt.2011.9 · Cited by 68
The ecology of trust among hackers
Dupont, B., Côté, A.-M., Savine, C., & Décary-Hêtu, D. (2016) · Global Crime · doi:10.1080/17440572.2016.1157480 · Cited by 69
CommTrust: Computing Multi-Dimensional Trust by Mining E-Commerce Feedback Comments
Zhang, X., Cui, L., & Wang, Y. (2014) · IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering · doi:10.1109/tkde.2013.177 · Cited by 69
Siano, A., Vollero, A., & Palazzo, M. (2011) · Journal of Brand Management · doi:10.1057/bm.2011.23 · Cited by 66
E-Hermes: A robust cooperative trust establishment scheme for mobile ad hoc networks
Zouridaki, C., Mark, B. L., Hejmo, M., et al. (2008) · Ad Hoc Networks · doi:10.1016/j.adhoc.2008.10.003 · Cited by 67
“The literature discusses the conveyance of second-hand information through a variety of schemes such as recommendations [6,15–18].”
BackgroundSchmoozing and Smiting: Trust, Social Institutions, and Communication Patterns in an MMOG
Ratan, R., Chung, J. E., Shen, C., Williams, D. C., & Poole, M. S. (2010) · Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication · doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2010.01534.x · Cited by 70
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
