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 401–500 of 2,164
Competitive collaborative learning
Awerbuch, B., & Kleinberg, R. (2007) · Journal of Computer and System Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.jcss.2007.08.004 · Cited by 47
Grazioli, S., & Järvenpää, S. L. (2003) · Communications of the ACM · doi:10.1145/953460.953500 · Cited by 47
“Reputation systems and performance histories are means of preventing consumers from being victimized by misrepresentations of goods and services that have recently been the object of scientific investigation [10].”
BackgroundA Taxonomy to Express Open Challenges in Trust and Reputation Systems
Tavakolifard, M., & Almeroth, K. C. (2012) · Journal of Communications · doi:10.4304/jcm.7.7.538-551 · Cited by 47
(2015) · Cited by 46
Fusing and mining opinions for reputation generation
Yan, Z., Jing, X., & Pedrycz, W. (2016) · Information Fusion · doi:10.1016/j.inffus.2016.11.011 · Cited by 47
Arbitrary Inequality in Reputation Systems
Frey, V., & van de Rijt, A. (2016) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/srep38304 · Cited by 46
Nurmi, J., Kaskela, T., Perälä, J., & Oksanen, A. (2017) · Drug and Alcohol Dependence · doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2017.05.018 · Cited by 48
Chua, A. P. H., Deans, K. R., & Parker, C. M. (2009) · AJIS. Australasian journal of information systems/AJIS. Australian journal of information systems/Australian journal of information systems · doi:10.3127/ajis.v16i1.561 · Cited by 47
“Blogs can also be used to collect, aggregate and distribute feedback between the company and its customers (Resnick et al., 2000).”
BackgroundYang, Y., Feng, Q., Sun, Y. L., & Dai, Y. (2008) · Security and Privacy in Communication Networks · doi:10.1145/1460877.1460888 · Cited by 46
“In February 2004, due to a software error, Amazon.com s Canadian site mistakenly revealed the true identities of some book reviewers.”
BackgroundThe Economics of Internet Markets
Levin, J. (2013) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139060011.003 · Cited by 45
An effective early fraud detection method for online auctions
Chang, W.-H., & Chang, J.-S. (2012) · Electronic Commerce Research and Applications · doi:10.1016/j.elerap.2012.02.005 · Cited by 46
“Online complaints are often recorded in reputation systems that collect, distribute, and aggregate feedback about an online business’s past behavior (Resnick et al. 2000), which provides information in addition to the numeric feedback score.”
BackgroundThe Influence of Friends and Experts on Privacy Decision Making in IoT Scenarios
Emami-Naeini, P., Degeling, M., Bauer, L., Chow, R., Cranor, L. F., Haghighat, M. R., & Patterson, H. (2018) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3274317 · Cited by 52
The effect of consumer ratings and attentional allocation on product valuations
Ashby, N. J. S., Walasek, L., & Glöckner, A. (2015) · Judgment and Decision Making · doi:10.1017/s1930297500003934 · Cited by 45
“Consequently, ratings and reviews are important elements of e-commerce, acting to reduce the fear of uncertainty associated with online purchasing decisions (Beldad et al., 2010; Koehn, 2003; Resnick et al., 2000; Tan, 1999).”
BackgroundA verifiable, centralized, coercion-free reputation system
Kerschbaum, F. (2009) · ACM Workshop on Privacy in the Electronic Society (WPES) · doi:10.1145/1655188.1655197 · Cited by 45
“A general overview of possible attacks on reputation systems can be found in [33].”
BackgroundMeasurement Theory-Based Trust Management Framework for Online Social Communities
Ruan, Y., Zhang, P., Alfantoukh, L., & Arjan Durresi, A. (2017) · ACM Transactions on Internet Technology · doi:10.1145/3015771 · Cited by 45
“For example, trust has been used in electronic markets, such as eBay [Resnick et al. 2000], in the Internet of Things [Ruan et al. 2016], and in Peer-to-Peer systems [Can and Bhargava 2013].”
MethodThe Design of A Distributed Rating Scheme for Peer-to-peer Systems
Dutta, D., Goel, A., Govindan, R., et al. (2007) · Cited by 45
Extracting and visualizing trust relationships from online auction feedback comments
O’Donovan, J., Smyth, B., Evrim, V., et al. (2007) · International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence · Cited by 44
Online Harassment, Defamation, and Hateful Speech: A Primer of the Legal Landscape
Marwick, A. E., & Miller, R. A. (2014) · FLASH - Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship & History (Fordham University) · Cited by 43
Dhokia, V. G., Kumar, S., Vichare, P., et al. (2008) · Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing · doi:10.1016/j.rcim.2008.03.019 · Cited by 44
On the Simulation of Global Reputation Systems
Schlosser, A., Voß, M., & Brückner, L. (2005) · RePEc: Research Papers in Economics · Cited by 44
Photo-based authentication using social networks
Yardi, S., Feamster, N., & Bruckman, A. S. (2008) · doi:10.1145/1397735.1397748 · Cited by 45
“Sociologists have emphasized the importance of establishing trust in online reputation systems that collect, distribute, and aggregate feedback about participants’ past behavior [9].”
BackgroundToward an Information Technology Research Agenda for Public Administration
Garson, G. D. (2003) · IGI Global eBooks · doi:10.4018/978-1-59140-060-8.ch014 · Cited by 44
Reputation evaluation for choosing a trustworthy counterparty in C2C e-commerce
Wu, F., Li, H.-H., & Kuo, Y.-H. (2010) · Electronic Commerce Research and Applications · doi:10.1016/j.elerap.2010.09.004 · Cited by 44
“…systems are capable of decision support for Internet-mediated services, and have been widely used in online commercial applications, such as the eBay’s feedback system (Resnick et al. 2000, Dellarocas 2001, Bolton et al. 2004, Dellarocas 2005, Zhang 2006, Li et al. 2008, Zhou et al. 2008).”
MethodModel checking bidding behaviors in internet concurrent auctions
Xu, H., & Cheng, Y.-T. (2007) · Cited by 43
VectorTrust: trust vector aggregation scheme for trust management in peer-to-peer networks
Zhao, H., & Li, X. (2011) · The Journal of Supercomputing · doi:10.1007/s11227-011-0576-6 · Cited by 43
A Bayesian network based trust model for improving collaboration in mobile ad hoc networks
Nguyên, C. T., Camp, O., & Loiseau, S. (2007) · RIVF International Conference on Computing and Communication Technologies (RIVF) · doi:10.1109/rivf.2007.369149 · Cited by 41
Ladegaard, I. (2019) · Social Forces · doi:10.1093/sf/soz140 · Cited by 43
Bayesian Selection of Non-Faulty Sensors
Ni, K., & Pottie, G. J. (2007) · IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory (ISIT) · doi:10.1109/isit.2007.4557293 · Cited by 43
“An extension to consensus problems are reputation systems [16].”
BackgroundCoevolution of Trustful Buyers and Cooperative Sellers in the Trust Game
Masuda, N., & Nakamura, M. (2012) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0044169 · Cited by 50
“The main mechanism to elicit the cooperative behavior of sellers in such a social dilemma situation is the online reputation management system, also called the feedback mechanism [2–5].”
BackgroundCrowdsourcing credibility: The impact of audience feedback on Web page credibility
Giudice, K. D. (2010) · Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/meet.14504701099 · Cited by 41
“Many Internet users who encounter information do not give feedback (Grifantini, 2009; Kelly, 2005; Resnick & Varian, 1997; Resnick et al., 2000).”
BackgroundA Privacy Preserving Reputation System for Mobile Information Dissemination Networks
Voss, M., Heinemann, A., & Mühlhäuser, M. (2006) · doi:10.1109/securecomm.2005.7 · Cited by 43
“Reputation systems [19] evolve as a mechanism to build trust in dynamic electronic societies and are already used in many applications.”
BackgroundDesigning reputation mechanisms
Dellarocas, C., Dini, F., & Spagnolo, G. (2006) · Handbook of Procurement · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511492556.019 · Cited by 44
A probabilistic reputation model based on transaction ratings
Fouss, F., Achbany, Y., & Saerens, M. (2010) · Information Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.ins.2010.01.020 · Cited by 42
“This new type of market has introduced a new risk dimension to traders: the winner of the auction might not deliver payment, the seller might not deliver the item, or the delivered item might not be as the seller described [36,63].”
BackgroundPerceived Ease of Use, Trust, and Satisfaction as Determinants of Loyalty in e-Auction Marketplace
Tu, C.-C., Fang, K., & Lin, C.-Y. (2012) · Journal of Computers · doi:10.4304/jcp.7.3.645-652 · Cited by 48
“Whilst most online auctions research emphasizes reputation feedback systems [3, 17, 18], bidding prices [19], auction design [20], and price premiums [21], online auction users’ behavior is not monolithic.”
BackgroundKlein, T. J., Lambertz, C., Spagnolo, G., & Stahl, K. O. (2009) · International Journal of Electronic Business · doi:10.1504/ijeb.2009.026532 · Cited by 40
A user reputation model for a user‐interactive question answering system
Chen, W., Zeng, Q., Wenyin, L., et al. (2006) · Concurrency and Computation Practice and Experience · doi:10.1002/cpe.1142 · Cited by 42
An incentive-based fairness mechanism for multi-hop wireless backhaul networks with selfish nodes
Lee, J.-F., Liao, W., & Chen, M. C. (2008) · IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications · doi:10.1109/twc.2008.060631 · Cited by 42
“, [10-14]), where the behavior of each node is monitored and non-cooperative nodes (including selfish and malicious ones) will be punished, or payment-based (e.”
BackgroundA logical framework for history-based access control and reputation systems
Krukow, K., Nielsen, M., & Sassone, V. (2008) · Journal of Computer Security · doi:10.3233/jcs-2008-16102 · Cited by 42
“…systems foster an incentive for principals to well-behave because of “the expectation of reciprocity or retaliation in future interactions” [30], and reputation itself has previously been formalized and analyzed by economists in simple game-theoretic models, leading to similar conclusions…”
Dellarocas, C. N. (2003) · ACM Conference on Electronic Commerce (EC) · doi:10.1145/779928.779930 · Cited by 42
Quality-Based Pricing for Crowdsourced WorkersPreprint
Wang, J., Ipeirotis, P. G., & Provost, F. J. (2013) · SSRN Electronic Journal · Cited by 39
Bid or Buy? Individual Shopping Traits as Predictors of Strategic Exit in On-Line Auctions
Angst, C. M., Agarwal, R., & Kuruzovich, J. (2008) · International Journal of Electronic Commerce · doi:10.2753/jec1086-4415130102 · Cited by 41
End-to-End Service Support for Mashups
Bouguettaya, A., Nepal, ., Sherchan, W., Zhou, X., Wu, J. X., Chen, S., Liu, D., Li, L., Wang, H., & Liu, X. (2010) · IEEE Transactions on Services Computing · doi:10.1109/tsc.2010.34 · Cited by 41
“Research results show that reliable reputation systems increase user’s trust in the web [16].”
BackgroundKharchenkova, S., & Velthuis, O. (2017) · Socio-Economic Review · doi:10.1093/ser/mwx057 · Cited by 48
Trust Assessment for Internet of Things in Multi-access Edge Computing
Ruan, Y., Arjan Durresi, A., & Uslu, S. (2018) · International Conference on Advanced Information Networking and Applications (AINA) · doi:10.1109/aina.2018.00165 · Cited by 43
“Trust has been treated as a soft security mechanism for protection in many fields, such as IT systems, sociology [18], electronic commerce [19], financial data analysis [20], Internet of Things [21], and so on.”
BackgroundTowards Electronic Persistence Using ARK Identifiers
Kunze, J. (2003) · eScholarship (California Digital Library) · Cited by 41
Daignault, M., Shepherd, M. A., Marche, S., & Watters, C. R. (2003) · doi:10.1109/isec.2002.1166905 · Cited by 41
Repository 2.0: Social Dynamics to Support Community Building in Learning Object Repositories
Benito, S. M., Ovelar, R., & Azpeitia, I. (2008) · Interdisciplinary Journal of e-Skills and Lifelong Learning · doi:10.28945/374 · Cited by 41
Animesh, A., Ramachandran, V., & Viswanathan, S. (2005) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.851286 · Cited by 37
Zheleva, E., Kołcz, A., & Getoor, L. (2008) · ACM Transactions on Information Systems · doi:10.1145/1416950.1416953 · Cited by 40
“It differs from the Ebay reputation system (and others like it) [Resnick and Zeckhauser 2002; Resnick et al. 2000] in that the Ebay user reputation is built by ratings assigned by other users, whereas in our system a single agent (the system itself) calculates the user reliability.”
MethodAddressing Common Vulnerabilities of Reputation Systems for Electronic Commerce
Yao, Y., Ruohomaa, S., & Xu, F. (2012) · Journal of theoretical and applied electronic commerce research · doi:10.4067/s0718-18762012000100002 · Cited by 40
“In addition to helping people to decide whom to trust, reputation systems encourage trustworthy behaviour and deter dishonest participation [57].”
BackgroundAn incentive mechanism to reinforce truthful reports in reputation systems
Zhao, H., Yang, X., & Li, X. (2011) · Journal of Network and Computer Applications · doi:10.1016/j.jnca.2011.03.011 · Cited by 40
“Comprehensive survey and overview on trust and reputation systems can be found in Resnick et al. (2000), Marti and Garcia-Molina (2006), Ruohomaa et al. (2007), Sun et al. (2006).”
BackgroundA topic-biased user reputation model in rating systems
Li, B., Li, R.-H., King, I., Lyu, M. R.-T., & Yu, J. X. (2014) · Knowledge and Information Systems · doi:10.1007/s10115-014-0780-9 · Cited by 39
An interval type-2 fuzzy logic based framework for reputation management in Peer-to-Peer e-commerce
Acampora, G., Alghazzawi, D., Hagras, H., et al. (2015) · Information Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.ins.2015.11.015 · Cited by 40
The Retransmission of Rumor and Rumor Correction Messages on Twitter
Chua, A. Y. K., Tee, C.-Y., Pang, A., & Lim, E. (2017) · American Behavioral Scientist · doi:10.1177/0002764217717561 · Cited by 40
“Individuals gain influence through the relationships they build (Resnick et al., 2000).”
BackgroundMultilateral Secure Cross-Community Reputation Systems for Internet Communities
Pingel, F., & Steinbrecher, S. (2008) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-540-85735-8_8 · Cited by 40
An object-oriented development method for Customer Knowledge Management Information Systems
Lin, J. (2006) · Knowledge-Based Systems · doi:10.1016/j.knosys.2006.07.003 · Cited by 40
Reputation-Based Scheduling on Unreliable Distributed Infrastructures
Sonnek, J., Nathan, M., Chandra, A., & Weissman, J. (2006) · IEEE International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems (ICDCS) · doi:10.1109/icdcs.2006.70 · Cited by 39
“Reputation systems [15] are commonly used to gauge the reliability of nodes based on past interactions.”
BackgroundTopic-Based Bengali Opinion Summarization
Das, A., & Bandyopadhyay, S. (2010) · Cited by 40
Modelling routing in wireless ad hoc networks with dynamic bayesian games
Nurmi, P. (2005) · doi:10.1109/sahcn.2004.1381903 · Cited by 40
Engineering Trust - Reciprocity in the Production of Reputation InformationPreprint
Bolton, G. E., Greiner, B., & Ockenfels, A. (2009) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.1355583 · Cited by 41
A vertex similarity index for better personalized recommendation
Chen, L., Zhang, Z., Liu, J., Gao, J. G., & Zhou, T. (2016) · Physica A Statistical Mechanics and its Applications · doi:10.1016/j.physa.2016.09.057 · Cited by 37
“As future works, we could consider designingmore suitable similarity indices for networks [68,69] and introducing reputation systems into the personalized recommendation to improve its robustness in resisting spamming attacks [70,71].”
BackgroundReputation inflation detection in a Chinese C2C market
You, W., Liu, L., Xia, M., & Lv, C. (2011) · Electronic Commerce Research and Applications · doi:10.1016/j.elerap.2011.06.001 · Cited by 39
“Resnick et al. (2000) conducted an experiment on eBay comparing sellers with high and low reputations selling the same products.”
MethodReputation mechanism for e-commerce in virtual reality environments
Fang, H., Zhang, J., Şensoy, M., & Magnenat‐Thalmann, N. (2014) · Electronic Commerce Research and Applications · doi:10.1016/j.elerap.2014.08.002 · Cited by 39
When Beauty Doesn't Pay: Gender and Beauty Biases in a Peer-to-Peer Loan Market
Kuwabara, K., & Thébaud, S. (2017) · Social Forces · doi:10.1093/sf/sox020 · Cited by 38
Self-citationBrill, M. (2018) · Adaptive Agents and Multi-Agents Systems · doi:10.65109/qtfz2554 · Cited by 39
Abdo, J. B., Sibai, R. E., & Demerjian, J. (2020) · Transactions on Emerging Telecommunications Technologies · doi:10.1002/ett.4148 · Cited by 40
A hybrid trust management framework for a multi-service social IoT network
Narang, N. K., & Kar, S. (2021) · Computer Communications · doi:10.1016/j.comcom.2021.02.015 · Cited by 39
Meziane, F., & Kasiran, M. K. (2007) · Journal of the Operational Research Society · doi:10.1057/palgrave.jors.2602430 · Cited by 39
“Resnick et al (2000) state that these mechanisms can help people make decisions about who to trust and provide an incentive for honest behaviour.”
BackgroundWeblogs as an emerging genre in higher education
Oravec, J. A. (2003) · Journal of Computing in Higher Education · doi:10.1007/bf02940937 · Cited by 39
Wang, Z., Li, H., Ye, Q., et al. (2016) · Decision Support Systems · doi:10.1016/j.dss.2016.04.008 · Cited by 39
“In anonymous online markets, electronic rating systems have efficiently provided information about the reputation of sellers to compensate for the lack of face-to-face interactions [39].”
BackgroundCollaborative Intrusion Detection Networks and Insider Attacks.
Fung, C. (2011) · Cited by 39
An Auctioning Reputation System Based on Anomaly Detection
Rubin, S., Christodorescu, M., Ganapathy, V., Giffin, J. T., Kruger, L., & Wang, H. (2005) · doi:10.21236/ada449098 · Cited by 39
Reputation portability – quo vadis?
Hesse, M., & Teubner, T. (2020) · Electronic Markets · doi:10.1007/s12525-019-00367-6 · Cited by 39
“However, legal claims around the proprietorship of reputational data quickly put a stop to the service (Dellarocas et al. 2009; Resnick et al. 2000).”
BackgroundInfluentialMessina, F., Pappalardo, G. C., Rosaci, D., et al. (2015) · Future Generation Computer Systems · doi:10.1016/j.future.2015.07.013 · Cited by 38
Conversation as a source of satisfaction and continuance in a question-and-answer site
Raban, D. R. (2011) · European Journal of Information Systems · doi:10.1057/ejis.2011.42 · Cited by 37
“European Journal of Information Systems Tip Text: another social feedback mechanism providing a comment to accompany the monetary tip.”
BackgroundInfluentialServiceTrust: Trust Management in Service Provision Networks
Su, Z., Liu, L., Li, M., et al. (2013) · IEEE International Conference on Services Computing · doi:10.1109/scc.2013.31 · Cited by 38
“When a peer Pi acting as a provider to respond to a service request from another peer Pj, the receiving peer Pj is allowed to enter a feedback rating on Pi in terms of the quality of the service provided by Pi.”
BackgroundHamdi, S., Gançarski, A. L., Bouzeghoub, A., et al. (2016) · ACM Transactions on Information Systems · doi:10.1145/2858791 · Cited by 38
“In online systems such as eBay 3 and Amazon, 4 trust is based on the feedback on past interactions between members [Resnick et al. 2000; Ruohomaa et al. 2007].”
BackgroundVeracity of Data: From Truth Discovery Computation Algorithms to Models of Misinformation Dynamics
Berti‐Équille, L., & Borge‐Holthoefer, J. (2015) · Synthesis lectures on data management · doi:10.2200/s00676ed1v01y201509dtm042 · Cited by 41
GroupTrust: Dependable Trust Management
Fan, X., Liu, L., Li, M., et al. (2016) · IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems · doi:10.1109/tpds.2016.2611660 · Cited by 38
Lampinen, A., & Brown, B. A. T. (2017) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3025453.3025515 · Cited by 38
“Some key domains where markets have been deployed and studied include auctions and commodity markets (such as early research on eBay [48,49]) as well as game markets and virtual economies [35].”
BackgroundAn Improved Proof-of-Trust Consensus Algorithm for Credible Crowdsourcing Blockchain Services
Zhu, X., Li, Y., Li, F. D., et al. (2020) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2020.2998803 · Cited by 38
“Since Resnick et al. proposed credibility [4], its researches and applications have received great attention of researchers.”
BackgroundButter, F. A. G. D., Liu, J., & Tan, Y. (2011) · Government Information Quarterly · doi:10.1016/j.giq.2011.05.004 · Cited by 40
“Furthermore, Resnick et al. (2000) suggest that reputation systems can solve the problemof dealingwith strangers in online environments.”
BackgroundA framework for concrete reputation-systems with applications to history-based access control
Krukow, K., Nielsen, M., & Sassone, V. (2005) · Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security · doi:10.1145/1102120.1102155 · Cited by 38
A familiarity-based trust model for effective selection of sellers in multiagent e-commerce systems
Zhang, J., Ghorbani, A. A., & Cohen, R. A. (2007) · International Journal of Information Security · doi:10.1007/s10207-007-0025-y · Cited by 38
“[23] point out that trust is an important key to the successes of the e-commerce systems such as eBay and Amazon.”
BackgroundReliable and Resilient Trust Management in Distributed Service Provision Networks
Su, Z., Liu, L., Li, M., et al. (2015) · ACM Transactions on the Web · doi:10.1145/2754934 · Cited by 38
“…in several areas of computer science, ranging from e-commerce [Xiong and Liu 2004] and e-government [Nepal et al. 2014], mobile networks, peer-to-peer networks, sensor networks, to social networks and applications [Dwyer et al. 2007; Jøsang, et al. 2007; Resnick et al. 2000; Sherchan et al. 2013].”
BackgroundModeling Reputation Management System on Online C2C Market
Yamamoto, H., Ishida, K., & Ohta, T. (2004) · Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory · doi:10.1023/b:cmot.0000039169.05361.3d · Cited by 38
“Resnick et al. (2000) discusses that reputation promotes trust formation among participants in an online market and community. From the bottom up management system can also provide a safety mechanism, in that participants can distinguish good offers from bad ones with respect to trust. For example, the feedback mechan…”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialReputation‐and‐Trust‐Based Systems for Ad Hoc Networks
Srinivasan, A., Teitelbaum, J., Wu, J., et al. (2008) · doi:10.1002/9780470396384.ch13 · Cited by 38
Trusted sensors and remote sensing
Potkonjak, M., Meguerdichian, S., & Wong, J. L. (2010) · Proceedings of IEEE Sensors/Proceedings of IEEE Sensors ... · doi:10.1109/icsens.2010.5690721 · Cited by 37
“There is significant work on a variety of reputation and transitive reputation schemes [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30], in peer-topeer computing, WWW data filtering, and social networks [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36].”
BackgroundWhat Usable Security Really Means: Trusting and Engaging Users
Kirlappos, I., & Sasse, M. A. (2014) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-07620-1_7 · Cited by 37
An Integrated Reward and Reputation Mechanism for MCS Preserving Users’ Privacy
Tanas, C., Delgado-Segura, S., & Herrera-Joancomartí, J. (2016) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-29883-2_6 · Cited by 37
A trust management framework for clouds
Ruan, Y., & Arjan Durresi, A. (2019) · Computer Communications · doi:10.1016/j.comcom.2019.05.018 · Cited by 37
GenTrust: A genetic trust management model for peer-to-peer systems
Tahta, U. E., Şen, S., & Can, A. B. (2015) · Applied Soft Computing · doi:10.1016/j.asoc.2015.04.053 · Cited by 37
“Furthermore, users should also have long-lived identities to build higher reputations [14].”
BackgroundChallenges in supporting end-user privacy and security management with social navigation
Goecks, J., Edwards, W. K., & Mynatt, E. D. (2009) · Symposium On Usable Privacy and Security · doi:10.1145/1572532.1572539 · Cited by 37
Toward a Comprehensive Model in Internet Auction Fraud Detection
Zhang, B., Zhou, Y., & Faloutsos, C. (2008) · Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS) · doi:10.1109/hicss.2008.455 · Cited by 37
Meents, S., & Verhagen, T. (2018) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2018.04.047 · Cited by 42
Collaborative automated trust negotiation in peer-to-peer systems
Ye, S., Makedon, F. S., & Ford, J. (2004) · doi:10.1109/p2p.2004.13 · Cited by 37
Assessing differential usage of usenet social accounting meta-data
Brush, A. J. B., Wang, X., Turner, T. C., et al. (2005) · ACM SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI) · doi:10.1145/1054972.1055097 · Cited by 37
An incentive compatible reputation mechanism for ubiquitous computing environments
Liu, J., & Issarny, V. (2007) · International Journal of Information Security · doi:10.1007/s10207-007-0029-7 · Cited by 37
“During online service provision, especially e-commerce, it is commonplace for parties that are unknown to each other to interact [25].”
BackgroundInfluentialDesign and management of collaborative intrusion detection networks
Fung, C., & Boutaba, R. (2013) · UWSpace (University of Waterloo) · Cited by 40
A Game-Theoretic Analysis of Trust Management in P2P Systems
Tuan, T. A. (2006) · International Conference on Communications and Electronics (ICCE) · doi:10.1109/cce.2006.350832 · Cited by 36
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
