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 301–400 of 2,164
Designing sticky knowledge networks
Bush, A. A., & Tiwana, A. (2005) · Communications of the ACM · doi:10.1145/1060710.1060711 · Cited by 67
The Sharing Economy: Issues Facing Platforms, Participants, and RegulatorsPreprint
Koopman, C., Mitchell, M. D., & Thierer, A. D. (2015) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.2610875 · Cited by 67
Online decision making in crowdsourcing markets
Slivkins, A., & Vaughan, J. W. (2014) · ACM SIGecom Exchanges · doi:10.1145/2692359.2692364 · Cited by 69
Risks and Rewards of Crowdsourcing Marketplaces
Chandler, J., Paolacci, G., & Mueller, P. A. (2013) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-8806-4_30 · Cited by 73
“Centralizing work within an online marketplace makes it possible to share information about potential exchange partners so participants can identify and avoid or sanction untrustworthy partners, even when they are effectively anonymous (Resnick, Kuwabara, Zeckhauser & Friedman, 2000).”
WALTHER, C. T. C. J. B. (2010) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9780203876527-7 · Cited by 66
Havakhor, T., Soror, A. A., & Sabherwal, R. (2016) · Information Systems Journal · doi:10.1111/isj.12127 · Cited by 66
“” Social media platforms, de fi ned as tools that enable users to build a unique pro fi le and publish text, images, video and other shareable media (Fernandez, 2014), utilize signals of individuals ’ reputation in order to re fl ect their trustworthiness (Resnick et al., 2000).”
BackgroundExamining the Antecedents and Consequences of Customers’ Trust Toward Mobile Retail Apps in India
Kaushik, A. K., Mohan, G., & Kumar, V. (2019) · Journal of Internet Commerce · doi:10.1080/15332861.2019.1686333 · Cited by 66
“This could be done through collecting favorable online reviews and feedbacks regarding consumers’ experience with them (Resnick et al. 2000).”
BackgroundCan “Gold Medal” Online Sellers Earn Gold? The Impact of Reputation Badges on Sales
Cheng, H. K., Fan, W., Guo, P., Huang, H., & Qiu, L. (2020) · Journal of Management Information Systems · doi:10.1080/07421222.2020.1831776 · Cited by 64
Qureshi, H. N., Manalastas, M., Zaidi, S. M. A., Imran, A., & Kalaa, M. O. A. (2020) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2020.3046927 · Cited by 67
“SLA penalties can negatively impact the service provider reputation [91].”
BackgroundChakravorty, R., Agarwal, S., Banerjee, S., et al. (2005) · Proceedings of the 28th Annual International Conference on Mobile Computing And Networking · doi:10.1145/1080829.1080854 · Cited by 65
Peer Engagement Behaviors: Conceptualization and Research Directions
Lin, M., Miao, L., Wei, W., & Moon, H. G. (2019) · Journal of Service Research · doi:10.1177/1094670519865609 · Cited by 64
Zhang, J. (2012) · International Journal of Distributed Systems and Technologies · doi:10.4018/jdst.2012010104 · Cited by 64
Reputation Propagation in Composite Services
Nepal, ., Malik, Z., & Bouguettaya, A. (2009) · IEEE International Conference on Web Services (ICWS) · doi:10.1109/icws.2009.54 · Cited by 64
“Consequently, reputation based approaches have been proposed as a practical alternative to manage trust on the Service Web [6], [7], in both industry applications and academic research [8], [9].”
BackgroundA survey of security issue in multi-agent systems
Jung, Y., Kim, M., Masoumzadeh, A., & Joshi, J. B. D. (2011) · Artificial Intelligence Review · doi:10.1007/s10462-011-9228-8 · Cited by 65
“5.1 Definition Trust and reputation systems have been recognized as key factors for successful adoption of electronic commerce (Resnick et al. 2000).”
BackgroundInfluentialQiao, T., Shan, W., Zhang, M., & Liu, C. (2019) · International Journal of Information Management · doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.01.016 · Cited by 64
Managing Trust in Peer-to-Peer Systems Using Reputation-Based Techniques
Ooi, B. C., Liau, C. Y., & Tan, K. (2003) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-540-45160-0_2 · Cited by 63
Impact of the antecedents of eWOM on CBBE
Sijoria, C., Mukherjee, S., & Datta, B. (2018) · Marketing Intelligence & Planning · doi:10.1108/mip-10-2017-0221 · Cited by 72
Reputation methods for routing security for mobile ad hoc networks
Yau, P., & Mitchell, C. J. (2004) · doi:10.1109/tic.2003.1249106 · Cited by 63
“The use of reputation systems in many different areas of IT is increasing1, not least because of their widely publicised use in online auctions and product reviews, see, for example eBay and Amazon [8].”
BackgroundObłój, T., & Capron, L. (2010) · Strategic Management Journal · doi:10.1002/smj.902 · Cited by 63
“A possible explanation for this nonfinding is that negative feedback is more common on Allegro than it is on eBay.”
BackgroundInfluentialISTS: Implicit social trust and sentiment based approach to recommender systems
Alahmadi, D. H., & Zeng, X. (2015) · Expert Systems with Applications · doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2015.07.036 · Cited by 62
A fuzzy model for reasoning about reputation in web services
Sherchan, W., Loke, S. W., & Krishnaswamy, S. P. (2006) · ACM Symposium on Applied Computing · doi:10.1145/1141277.1141722 · Cited by 62
“Effective reputation systems enforce users to behave in a responsible way, provide a representative view of the user’s reliability, discourage and penalize deceitful behaviour and are tailored to cater for user preferences [10].”
BackgroundRanking Reputation and Quality in Online Rating Systems
Liao, H., Zeng, A., Xiao, R., et al. (2014) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0097146 · Cited by 61
Multidimensional credibility model for neighbor selection in collaborative recommendation
Kwon, K., Cho, J., & Park, Y. (2008) · Expert Systems with Applications · doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2008.08.071 · Cited by 61
“Trust-based concepts (i.e., trustworthiness, reputation, reliability, credibility, and so on) have been identified as key components in the solution to secure transactions in e-commerce (Jøsang et al., 2007; Kim et al., 2005; Manchala, 2006; Resnick et al., 2000; Riggs & Wilensky, 2001).”
BackgroundLinguistic characteristics of shill reviews
Ong, T. C., Mannino, M. V., & Gregg, D. G. (2013) · Electronic Commerce Research and Applications · doi:10.1016/j.elerap.2013.10.002 · Cited by 61
FUZZY TRUST AGGREGATION AND PERSONALIZED TRUST INFERENCE IN VIRTUAL SOCIAL NETWORKS
Lesani, M., & Montazeri, N. (2009) · Computational Intelligence · doi:10.1111/j.1467-8640.2009.00334.x · Cited by 61
Ramos, C. M. Q., & Molina, A. M. C. (2020) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.08.061 · Cited by 65
Evaluating Rater Credibility for Reputation Assessment of Web Services
Malik, Z., & Bouguettaya, A. (2007) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-540-76993-4_4 · Cited by 60
“Research results show that reliable reputation systems increase users’ trust in the Web [8] [18] [8].”
BackgroundTrustDavis: a non-exploitable online reputation system
DeFigueiredo, D., & Barr, E. T. (2005) · doi:10.1109/icect.2005.98 · Cited by 60
Rater Credibility Assessment in Web Services Interactions
Malik, Z., & Bouguettaya, A. (2008) · World Wide Web · doi:10.1007/s11280-008-0056-y · Cited by 59
SocialFilter: Introducing social trust to collaborative spam mitigation
Sirivianos, M., Kim, K., & Yang, X. (2011) · IEEE Conference on Computer Communications (INFOCOM) · doi:10.1109/infcom.2011.5935047 · Cited by 58
Revocation games in ephemeral networks
Raya, M., Manshaei, M. H., Félegyházi, M., et al. (2008) · Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security · doi:10.1145/1455770.1455797 · Cited by 59
“A solution to limit the abuses of efficient reaction schemes in presence of malicious nodes is achieved by the use of reputation systems, a set of techniques that considers the past behavior in order to determine the trustworthiness of a node [20].”
BackgroundNetwork-Driven Reputation in Online Scientific Communities
Liao, H., Xiao, R., Cimini, G., & Medo, M. (2014) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0112022 · Cited by 58
Sociotechnical Challenges and Progress in Using Social Media for Health
Munson, S. A., Cavusoglu, H., Frisch, L., & Fels, S. (2013) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.2792 · Cited by 57
Schneider, C., Weinmann, M., Mohr, P. N. C., & Brocke, J. V. (2020) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.2020.3654 · Cited by 59
Decentralizing science: Towards an interoperable open peer review ecosystem using blockchain
Tenorio-Fornés, A., Tirador, E. P., Sánchez‐Ruiz, A. A., & Hassan, S. (2021) · Information Processing & Management · doi:10.1016/j.ipm.2021.102724 · Cited by 58
Li, J., Xin, X., & Ngai, E. W. T. (2021) · Information & Management · doi:10.1016/j.im.2021.103549 · Cited by 59
TruBeRepec: a trust-behavior-based reputation and recommender system for mobile applications
Yan, Z., Zhang, P., & Deng, R. H. (2011) · Personal and Ubiquitous Computing · doi:10.1007/s00779-011-0420-2 · Cited by 57
Is a picture really worth a thousand words?
Di, W., Sundaresan, N., Piramuthu, R., & Bhardwaj, A. (2014) · ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining (WSDM) · doi:10.1145/2556195.2556226 · Cited by 58
“…and Subject Descriptors G.3 [PROBABILITY AND STATISTICS]: Correlation and regression analysis, Experimental design; H.2.8 [Database Applications]: [data mining, image databases] Keywords E-commerce, Online shopping, Multimodal data mining, Image, Image Quality, Buyer Behavior, User Engagement”
MethodInfluentialRobustness of Trust and Reputation Systems: Does It Matter?
Jøsang, A. (2012) · IFIP International Federation for Information Processing/IFIP · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-29852-3_21 · Cited by 56
“A second important TRS requirement is that it must react swiftly when the rating trend changes in the positive or negative direction, by immediately producing correspondingly more positive or more negative scores [21].”
InfluentialEvaluating user reputation in online rating systems via an iterative group-based ranking method
Gao, J. G., & Zhou, T. (2017) · Physica A Statistical Mechanics and its Applications · doi:10.1016/j.physa.2017.01.055 · Cited by 58
“At the age of Internet, individual reputation plays the role of fundamental blocks in building up online ecosystems [1,2].”
BackgroundWho should pay for online reviews? Design of an online user feedback mechanism
Chen, L., Jiang, T., Li, W., et al. (2017) · Electronic Commerce Research and Applications · doi:10.1016/j.elerap.2017.04.005 · Cited by 57
The Dynamics of Auction: Social Interaction and the Sale of Fine Art and Antiques
Heath, C. (2012) · Cited by 56
Qualitative trust modeling in SOA
Kovač, D., & Trček, D. (2009) · Journal of Systems Architecture · doi:10.1016/j.sysarc.2009.01.002 · Cited by 55
Harnessing Internet finance with innovative cyber credit management
Lin, Z., Whinston, A. B., & Fan, S. (2015) · Financial Innovation · doi:10.1186/s40854-015-0004-7 · Cited by 56
“2006), and online reputation systems (Resnick et al. 2000; Dellarocas 2003; Melnik & Alm 2002) have been tested to affect trust and lead to the consequences of trust.”
BackgroundAntecedent of purchase intention: online seller reputation, product category and surcharge
Pan, M., Kuo, C., Pan, C., et al. (2013) · Internet Research · doi:10.1108/intr-09-2012-0175 · Cited by 56
Q-rater: A collaborative reputation system based on source credibility theory
Cho, J., Kwon, K., & Park, Y. (2008) · Expert Systems with Applications · doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2008.02.034 · Cited by 56
Zloteanu, M., Harvey, N., Tuckett, D., & Livan, G. (2018) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0209071 · Cited by 56
“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 [2,54,55].”
BackgroundDiscretionary enforcement of electronic contracts
Milošević, Z., Jøsang, A., Dimitrakos, T., et al. (2003) · doi:10.1109/edoc.2002.1137695 · Cited by 56
“These mechanisms can help people make decisions about who to trust in electronic marketplaces and may also provide an incentive for honest behaviour, due to the fact that current behaviour will be remembered and may have consequences for future business transactions[19].”
BackgroundLi, W., Meng, W., & Kwok, L. F. (2014) · IFIP advances in information and communication technology · doi:10.1007/978-3-662-43813-8_5 · Cited by 55
“This attack occurs when a malicious node registers as a new user attempting to erase its bad history [20].”
BackgroundEffects of a reputation feedback system on an online consumer-to-consumer auction market
Yang, J., Hu, X., & Zhang, H. (2007) · Decision Support Systems · doi:10.1016/j.dss.2007.03.005 · Cited by 55
Trust Assessment in Online Social Networks
Liu, G., Yang, Q. B., Wang, H., et al. (2019) · IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing · doi:10.1109/tdsc.2019.2916366 · Cited by 55
“In online marketing applications[48], trust is used to identify trustworthy sellers.”
BackgroundSocial Rewarding in Wiki Systems – Motivating the Community
Hoisl, B., Aigner, W., & Miksch, S. (2007) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-540-73257-0_40 · Cited by 55
Dellarocas, C. N. (2002) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/3-540-36378-5_15 · Cited by 55
Toward a decentralized trust-based access control system for dynamic collaboration
Adams, W. J., & Davis, N. J. (2005) · IEEE Systems, Man and Cybernetics Information Assurance Workshop (IAW) · doi:10.1109/iaw.2005.1495969 · Cited by 56
Filippas, A., Horton, J. J., & Golden, J. M. (2022) · Marketing Science · doi:10.1287/mksc.2022.1350 · Cited by 61
A practical reputation system for pervasive social chatting
Yan, Z., Chen, Y., & Shen, Y. (2012) · Journal of Computer and System Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.jcss.2012.11.003 · Cited by 53
“Malicious users may artificially inflate or deflate reputations [5,17,28,32].”
BackgroundAutomatic grid assembly by promoting collaboration in peer-to-peer grids
Andrade, N., Brasileiro, F., Cirne, W., & Mowbray, M. (2007) · Journal of Parallel and Distributed Computing · doi:10.1016/j.jpdc.2007.04.011 · Cited by 53
“This use of reputation differs from the classic use of reputation [25] to enhance the quality of transactions in peer-to-peer systems such as eBay [26], or to marginalize untrustworthy peers as in the systems surveyed by Ooi et al.”
Shifting Boundaries of Volunteered Geographic Information Systems and Modalities: Learning from PGIS
McCall, M. K., Martínez, J. A., & Verplanke, J. J. (2015) · ACME · doi:10.14288/acme.v14i3.1234 · Cited by 54
Basu, A., & Muylle, S. (2003) · Communications of the ACM · doi:10.1145/953460.953496 · Cited by 53
A reputation-based trust management system for p2p networks
Selçuk, A. A., Uzun, E., & Pariente, M. R. (2004) · IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Cluster, Cloud and Grid Computing (CCGrid) · doi:10.1109/ccgrid.2004.1336575 · Cited by 54
“Reputation-based systems are used to establish trust among members of on-line communities where parties with no prior knowledge of each other use the feedback from their peers to assess the trustworthiness of the peers in the community [8].”
BackgroundReputation = f(user ranking, compliance, verity)
Kalepu, S., Krishnaswamy, S. P., & Loke, S. W. (2004) · IEEE International Conference on Web Services (ICWS) · doi:10.1109/icws.2004.1314740 · Cited by 54
“We contend that this reputation expression is a more viable attribute of quality than user rating alone.”
BackgroundA Reputation-Based Leader Election Scheme for Opportunistic Autonomous Vehicle Platoon
Ying, Z., Ma, M., Zhao, Z., et al. (2021) · IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology · doi:10.1109/tvt.2021.3106297 · Cited by 53
“…as the criterion to rate the dependability or trustworthiness of a single entity in definite activities according to its previous behavior [16]–[18], based on which, we propose a reputation management system based on blockchain technology for the PL election, all vehicles’ reputation values…”
BackgroundStylometric Identification in Electronic Markets: Scalability and Robustness
Abbasi, A., Chen, H., & Nunamaker, J. F. (2008) · Journal of Management Information Systems · doi:10.2753/mis0742-1222250103 · Cited by 53
“Discrimination entails blackmailing or threatening to post negative feedback about fellow traders [44].”
BackgroundInformational influence of online customer feedback: An empirical study
Liu, R. R., & Zhang, W. (2010) · Journal of Database Marketing & Customer Strategy Management · doi:10.1057/dbm.2010.11 · Cited by 53
Internet Auction Fraud Detection Using Social Network Analysis and Classification Tree Approaches
Chiu, C., Ku, Y., Lie, T., & Chen, Y. (2011) · International Journal of Electronic Commerce · doi:10.2753/jec1086-4415150306 · Cited by 52
Moser, C., Resnick, P., & Schoenebeck, S. Y. (2017) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3025453.3025550 · Cited by 53
“Another potential disadvantage of commerce is the lack of formal reputation or feedback systems, which can help users identify trustworthy parties [35,60].”
BackgroundSelf-citationA trust model for analysis of trust, influence and their relationship in social network communities
Asim, Y., Malik, A. K., Raza, B., & Shahid, A. R. (2018) · Telematics and Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.tele.2018.11.008 · Cited by 55
Reputation, Trust, and Rebates: How Online Auction Markets Can Improve Their Feedback Mechanisms
Li, L. (2010) · Journal of Economics & Management Strategy · doi:10.1111/j.1530-9134.2010.00253.x · Cited by 62
“An important reason for the success of online auction sites is that the use of an online feedback mechanism as a reputation system helps sustain trust in online markets.”
Resilient trust management for Web service integration
Park, S., Liu, L., Pu, C., et al. (2005) · IEEE International Conference on Web Services (ICWS) · doi:10.1109/icws.2005.99 · Cited by 53
Trust based knowledge outsourcing for semantic Web agents
Ding, L., Zhou, L., & Finin, T. (2004) · IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conference on Web Intelligence · doi:10.1109/wi.2003.1241219 · Cited by 53
“Normally, public trust, such as reputation system [20, 25, 32], is used as initial trust about unfamiliar agents.”
BackgroundMethodSystematic analysis of centralized online reputation systems
Liu, L., & Munro, M. (2011) · Decision Support Systems · doi:10.1016/j.dss.2011.10.003 · Cited by 51
Inferring preference correlations from social networks
Hogg, T. (2009) · Electronic Commerce Research and Applications · doi:10.1016/j.elerap.2009.04.006 · Cited by 52
Salehan, M., Kim, D. J., & Koo, C. (2016) · The Journal of Supercomputing · doi:10.1007/s11227-016-1790-z · Cited by 54
Trust and reputation on eBay: Towards a legal framework for feedback intermediaries
Rietjens, B. (2006) · Information & Communications Technology Law · doi:10.1080/13600830600557935 · Cited by 49
Spectrum based fraud detection in social networks
Ying, X., Wu, X., & Barbará, D. (2011) · IEEE International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE) · doi:10.1109/icde.2011.5767910 · Cited by 52
Clow, D., & Makriyannis, E. (2011) · International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge (LAK) · doi:10.1145/2090116.2090121 · Cited by 53
A Probabilistic Approach to Predict Peers’ Performance in P2P Networks
Despotovic, Z., & Aberer, K. (2004) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-540-30104-2_6 · Cited by 51
“eBay’s Feedback Forum is just a well known example of reputation systems [4] as informal social mechanisms for encouraging trustworthy behavior in online communities.”
BackgroundDo reputation feedback systems really improve trust among anonymous traders? An experimental study
David Masclet, B., & Pénard, T. (2011) · Applied Economics · doi:10.1080/00036846.2011.591740 · Cited by 44
“This is consistent with previous studies that have observed a ‘ Last minute feedback ’ effect for negative evaluations (see, e.g. Resnick et al ., 2000; Resnick and Zeckhauser, 2002; Klein et al ., 2006; Cabral and Hortacsu, 2010).”
ResultReputation-based trust management systems and their applicability to grids
Silaghi, G. C., Arenas, A. E., & Silva, L. M. (2007) · Cited by 51
Group-based ranking method for online rating systems with spamming attacks
Gao, J., Dong, Y.-W., Shang, M.-S., et al. (2015) · Europhysics Letters (EPL) · doi:10.1209/0295-5075/110/28003 · Cited by 50
Anomaly Detection in Feedback-based Reputation Systems through Temporal and Correlation Analysis
Liu, Y., & Sun, Y. L. (2010) · doi:10.1109/socialcom.2010.19 · Cited by 49
“The interactions can be fun, informative, and even profitable [1].”
BackgroundDesign of a multi-hop dynamic consensus algorithm over wireless sensor networks
Manfredi, S. (2013) · Control Engineering Practice · doi:10.1016/j.conengprac.2012.12.001 · Cited by 50
Media technologies and learning in the starcraft esport community
Kow, Y. M., & Young, T. (2013) · ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) · doi:10.1145/2441776.2441821 · Cited by 56
“In this respect, reputation research studies in HCI have often been framed from an information receiver’s perspective: How does a user know that a piece of information given by a stranger on the Internet is reliable (see [17,31])?”
BackgroundP2P Reputation Management Using Distributed Identities and Decentralized Recommendation Chains
Dewan, P., & Dasgupta, P. (2009) · IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering · doi:10.1109/tkde.2009.45 · Cited by 50
“Resnick et al. explain the problem of pseudospoofing in [13].”
BackgroundCalculating a node's reputation in a mobile ad hoc network
Adams, W. J., Hadjichristofi, G. C., & Davis, N. J. (2005) · IEEE International Performance, Computing, and Communications Conference · doi:10.1109/pccc.2005.1460573 · Cited by 50
Contracting with uncertain level of trust
Brainov, S., & Sandholm, T. (1999) · ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce (EC) · doi:10.1145/336992.336998 · Cited by 50
“There are problems with the aggregation of correlated reputation, fake transactions (Zacharia and Maes 2000), false identity and pseudonyms (Friedman and Resnick 1998), the obtaining of negative feedback (Resnick et al. 2000), interpretability and portability of reputation databases, etc.”
BackgroundIncentives to Promote Availability in Peer-to-Peer Anonymity Systems
Figueiredo, D. R., Shapiro, J. K., & Towsley, D. (2006) · IEEE International Conference on Network Protocols (ICNP) · doi:10.1109/icnp.2005.19 · Cited by 51
“• Reputation systems in which peers punish or reward each other based on observed behavior [7, 14, 28].”
Backgroundde Laat, P. B. (2005) · Ethics and Information Technology · doi:10.1007/s10676-006-0002-6 · Cited by 51
“Such reputation systems are still far from perfect (cf. Resnick et al. 2000).”
Sanctioning Reputation Mechanisms in Online Trading Environments with Moral Hazard
Dellarocas, C. N. (2003) · doi:10.2139/ssrn.393043 · Cited by 50
Askay, D. A. (2014) · New Media & Society · doi:10.1177/1461444814535190 · Cited by 50
“Scholars have suggested that social loafing (Resnick et al., 2000) or self-selection (Hu et al., 2007) contribute to this bias.”
BackgroundBeing Heard in Review Communities: Communication Tactics and Review Prominence
Otterbacher, J. (2011) · Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication · doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2011.01549.x · Cited by 49
“Since one’s online reputation is a key factor in gaining others’ trust (Resnick et al., 2000), we propose to examine the relationship between review prominence and information available via structural features about the respective reviewer.”
BackgroundDutta, N., & Bhat, A. (2016) · Journal of Internet Commerce · doi:10.1080/15332861.2016.1191053 · Cited by 59
“Earlier research findings suggest that reduction in perceived risk acts as a mechanism to increase trust (Resnick and Varian 1997; Dieberger et al. 2000; Resnick et al. 2000).”
BackgroundThe contradiction of trust and uncertainty from the viewpoint of swift guanxi
Chiu, T., Chih, W., Ortiz, J., & Wang, C.-Y. (2018) · Internet Research · doi:10.1108/intr-06-2017-0233 · Cited by 57
Consumer motivations and concerns in online auctions: an exploratory study
Cameron, D. D., & Galloway, A. (2005) · International Journal of Consumer Studies · doi:10.1111/j.1470-6431.2005.00385.x · Cited by 49
Maximum Likelihood Estimation of Peers" Performance in P2P Networks
Despotovic, Z., & Aberer, K. (2004) · Infoscience (Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne) · Cited by 49
A Case Study of Collaboration and Reputation in Social Web Search
McNally, K., O’Mahony, M. P., Coyle, M., et al. (2011) · ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology · doi:10.1145/2036264.2036268 · Cited by 48
“…in reputation systems to provide a mechanism to evaluate user reputation and inter-user trust across a growing number of social web and e-commerce applications [Jøsang and Golbeck 2009; O’Donovan and Smyth 2005; 2006; Sabater and Sierra 2005; Resnick and Zeckhauser 2002; Resnick et al. 2000].”
BackgroundTrust measures for competitive agents
Rosaci, D. (2011) · Knowledge-Based Systems · doi:10.1016/j.knosys.2011.11.011 · Cited by 48
On agent technology for e-commerce: trust, security and legal issues
Fasli, M. (2007) · The Knowledge Engineering Review · doi:10.1017/s0269888907001014 · Cited by 48
“The outcomes of these past experiences are aggregated and make up reputation (Resnick et al. , 2000).”
BackgroundRanking-Based Optimal Resource Allocation in Peer-to-Peer Networks
Yan, Y., El‐Atawy, A., & Al-Shaer, E. S. (2007) · doi:10.1109/infcom.2007.132 · Cited by 48
“The competing peers compete to share the source peer’s resources.”
BackgroundMeasuring dimensions of perceived e-business risks
Scott, J. E. (2004) · Information Systems and e-Business Management · doi:10.1007/s10257-003-0026-y · Cited by 49
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
