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 501–600 of 2,164
An Eigentrust dynamic evolutionary model in P2P file-sharing systems
Lu, K., Wang, J., & Li, M. (2015) · Peer-to-Peer Networking and Applications · doi:10.1007/s12083-015-0416-1 · Cited by 39
“Many reputation systems [10], such as eBay [14], ePin-ions [15], PeerTrust [16], Powertrust [17], and EigenTrust [7], have been proposed to defend against malicious peers.”
BackgroundCoussement, K., Debaere, S., & Ruyck, T. D. (2017) · Journal of Product Innovation Management · doi:10.1111/jpim.12401 · Cited by 37
Qiu, W., Parigi, P., & Abrahao, B. (2018) · Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3173574.3173727 · Cited by 37
“A decision which influ-enced primarily by traditional peer-to-peer (p2p) markets such as eBay [21].”
BackgroundTrust Management of Smart Service Communities
Al-Hamadi, H., Chen, I.-R., & Cho, J.-H. (2019) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2019.2901023 · Cited by 36
“Our proposed trust-based service community management system is based on a centralized cloud utility in the service community [26] collecting trust evidence from SRs.”
Fraud detection in reputation systems in e-markets using logistic regression
Maranzato, R., Pereira, A. C. M., do Lago, A. P., et al. (2010) · ACM Symposium on Applied Computing · doi:10.1145/1774088.1774400 · Cited by 36
“[17] say that these reputation systems have three main problems: (i) buyers have little motivation to provide feedback to sellers; (ii) it is difficult to elicit negative feedback because it is common that people negotiate and solve problems before filling the evaluation in the system; (iii) it is difficult to assure…”
BackgroundMethodInfluential'Egoboo' vs. altruism: the role of reputation in online consumer communities
Utz, S. (2009) · New Media & Society · doi:10.1177/1461444808101616 · Cited by 36
“, 2004), where many interactions are oneshot interactions between strangers, making cheating a tempting strategy (Resnick et al., 2000).”
BackgroundInfluentialA Trust Management Framework for Cloud Computing Platforms
Ruan, Y., & Arjan Durresi, A. (2017) · International Conference on Advanced Information Networking and Applications (AINA) · doi:10.1109/aina.2017.108 · Cited by 37
Unlocking Online Reputation: On the Effectiveness of Cross-Platform Signaling in the Sharing Economy
Teubner, T., Adam, M. T. P., & Hawlitschek, F. (2020) · Business & Information Systems Engineering · doi:10.1007/s12599-019-00620-4 · Cited by 35
“To allow for reputation to establish, platforms employ various systems (Jøsang et al. 2007; Resnick et al. 2000).”
BackgroundMarth, S., Hartl, B., & Penz, E. (2022) · Journal of Consumer Behaviour · doi:10.1002/cb.2075 · Cited by 36
“Sharing economy platforms may benefit from the experience of online vendors and apply trust-building measures to their websites (Resnick et al., 2000; Resnick & Zeckhauser, 2002).”
BackgroundInfluentialPerContRep: a practical reputation system for pervasive content services
Yan, Z., Chen, Y., & Shen, Y. (2014) · The Journal of Supercomputing · doi:10.1007/s11227-014-1116-y · Cited by 34
A novel multiple-level trust management framework for wireless sensor networks
Zhang, B., Huang, Z., & Xiang, Y. (2014) · Computer Networks · doi:10.1016/j.comnet.2014.06.015 · Cited by 35
A Trust-Based Recruitment Framework for Multi-hop Social Participatory Sensing
Amintoosi, H., & Kanhere, S. S. (2013) · IEEE International Conference on Distributed Computing in Sensor Systems (DCOSS) · doi:10.1109/dcoss.2013.29 · Cited by 35
“particular participant is trustworthy [14].”
Towards Social Norm Design for Crowdsourcing Markets
Ho, C.-J., Zhang, Y., Vaughan, J. W., & van der Schaar, M. (2012) · Cited by 33
Mantas, N., Louta, M. D., Karapistoli, E., et al. (2017) · IET Networks · doi:10.1049/iet-net.2017.0079 · Cited by 35
The conditioning function of rating mechanisms for consumers in the sharing economy
Newlands, G., Lutz, C., & Fieseler, C. (2019) · Internet Research · doi:10.1108/intr-03-2018-0134 · Cited by 35
Lee, Y., Lee, K. M., & Lee, S. H. (2019) · Peer-to-Peer Networking and Applications · doi:10.1007/s12083-019-00730-6 · Cited by 35
Classification of Customer Satisfaction Attributes: An Application of Online Hotel Review Analysis
Dong, J., Li, H., & Zhang, X. (2014) · IFIP advances in information and communication technology · doi:10.1007/978-3-662-45526-5_23 · Cited by 35
Bank of One: Empirical Analysis of Peer-to-Peer Financial Marketplaces
Kumar, S. (2007) · Journal of the Association for Information Systems · Cited by 35
The usefulness of bidders’ reputation ratings to sellers in online auctions
Dholakia, U. M. (2005) · Journal of Interactive Marketing · doi:10.1002/dir.20029 · Cited by 35
“…their decisions regarding which item(s) to bid on, and which one(s) to avoid, and (2) because they have predictive value, since ratings received by sellers in the past are diagnostic of success (or failure) of future transactions with them (e.g., Ba & Pavlou, 2002; Resnick et al., 2000).”
BackgroundIncentive compatible mechanism for trust revelation
Braynov, S., & Sandholm, T. (2002) · doi:10.1145/544741.544814 · Cited by 35
Using uncertainty in reputation methods to enforce cooperation in ad-hoc networks
Kane, K., & Browne, J. C. (2006) · doi:10.1145/1161289.1161308 · Cited by 34
Maranzato, R. P., Pereira, A. C. M., Neubert, M., & do Lago, A. P. (2010) · ACM SIGAPP Applied Computing Review · doi:10.1145/1869687.1869689 · Cited by 34
Reputation and Reward: Two Sides of the Same Bitcoin
Delgado-Segura, S., Tanas, C., & Herrera‐Joancomartí, J. (2016) · Sensors · doi:10.3390/s16060776 · Cited by 34
An axiomatic approach to personalized ranking systems
Altman, A., & Tennenholtz, M. (2010) · Journal of the ACM · doi:10.1145/1734213.1734220 · Cited by 34
“Personalized ranking systems have a lot in common with trust [Dash et al. 2004; Guha et al. 2004] and reputation systems [Resnick et al. 2000; Dellarocas 2003], which try to establish who a speci.c should agent trust based on social links, similarity, or trade history.”
BackgroundPrivate Ordering on the Internet: The eBay Community of Traders
Baron, D. P. (2002) · Business and Politics · doi:10.2202/1469-3569.1041 · Cited by 34
Mechanisms for information elicitation
Zohar, A., & Rosenschein, J. S. (2008) · Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.artint.2008.08.005 · Cited by 34
“One approach to the problem of reliability of these sources is the use of artificially created reputation systems [3].”
BackgroundEvaluating Participation and Performance in Participatory Sensing
Reddy, S., Shilton, K., Burke, J., et al. (2008) · Cited by 34
A Service-Oriented Trust Management Framework
Dimitrakos, T. (2003) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/3-540-36609-1_6 · Cited by 34
Reputation effects in socially driven sharing economy transactions
Ter Huurne, M., Ronteltap, A., Guo, C., Corten, R., & Buskens, V. (2018) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su10082674 · Cited by 33
Nanotechnology-based trusted remote sensing
Wendt, J. B., & Potkonjak, M. (2011) · Proceedings of IEEE Sensors/Proceedings of IEEE Sensors ... · doi:10.1109/icsens.2011.6127174 · Cited by 32
“There has been a significant amount of work in numerous reputation schemes [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] which are geared most towards applications in WWW, peer-to-peer networks, data filtering and social networks [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31].”
BackgroundImproved personalized recommendation based on a similarity network
Wang, X., Liu, Y., & Xiong, F. (2016) · Physica A Statistical Mechanics and its Applications · doi:10.1016/j.physa.2016.03.070 · Cited by 33
What drives customers to use access-based sharing options in the hospitality industry?
Lu, C., & Kandampully, J. A. (2016) · Research in Hospitality Management · doi:10.1080/22243534.2016.1253276 · Cited by 33
“The online intermediaries help to generate trust through a public feedback mechanism that shares information about transactions (Resnick et al., 2000).”
BackgroundCustomer perceptions of frontline employees’ extra-role helping behaviors
Wang, X., Keh, H. T., & Li, Y. (2020) · Journal of Services Marketing · doi:10.1108/jsm-08-2019-0298 · Cited by 36
Architectural support for trust models in decentralized applications
Suryanarayana, G., Diallo, M. H., Erenkrantz, J. R., & Taylor, R. N. (2006) · ACM/IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering: Companion Proceedings (ICSE-Companion) · doi:10.1145/1134285.1134295 · Cited by 33
“Reputation-based systems enable a peer to evaluate the trustworthiness of another peer based on relevant reputation information obtained from other peers in the system [19].”
BackgroundInternet-Based Collaborations and Their Political Significance
Lev‐On, A., & Hardin, R. (2008) · Journal of Information Technology & Politics · doi:10.1080/19331680802076074 · Cited by 32
“…Fielding, & Herbsleb, 2002; Lerner & Tirole, 2002; Osterloh & Rota, 2004; Weber, 2004); Wikipedia (Voss 2005); review, recommendation and reputation systems (Dellarocas, 2003; Resnick et al., 2000); grid computing (Holohan & Garg, 2005); discussion groups (Butler et al.,”
BackgroundLast Minute FeedbackPreprint
Klein, T. J., Lambertz, C., Spagnolo, G., & Stahl, K. (2006) · RePEc: Research Papers in Economics · doi:10.5282/ubm/epub.13488 · Cited by 32
Sherman, A., Nieh, J., & Stein, C. (2009) · ACM International Conference on emerging Networking EXperiments and Technologies (CoNEXT) · doi:10.1145/1658939.1658955 · Cited by 32
TrailTrade: A model for trail-aware commerce support
Barbosa, J. L. V., Martins, C., Franco, L., & Barbosa, D. N. F. (2016) · Computers in Industry · doi:10.1016/j.compind.2016.04.006 · Cited by 30
Aerts, G., Smits, T., & Verlegh, P. W. J. (2017) · Decision Support Systems · doi:10.1016/j.dss.2017.10.006 · Cited by 32
Digital Trust and Cooperation with an Integrative Digital Social Contract
Levine, L. (2019) · Journal of Business Ethics · doi:10.1007/s10551-019-04201-z · Cited by 49
Indirect reciprocity with simple records
Clark, D., Drew Fudenberg, B., & Wolitzky, A. (2020) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1921984117 · Cited by 33
ServiceTrust: Supporting Reputation-Oriented Service Selection
He, Q., Yan, J. H., Jin, H., et al. (2009) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-10383-4_18 · Cited by 32
“A direct approach to address this issue is to use a reputation system which collects and processes feedback about service providers’ past behaviour [11, 18, 20, 25].”
BackgroundNew Algorithms for Mining the Reputation of Participants of Online Auctions
Morzy, M. (2007) · Algorithmica · doi:10.1007/s00453-007-9106-6 · Cited by 32
“Reputation systems [11] are commonly used to build trust on the Internet, where millions of individuals perform commercial transactions without knowing each other.”
BackgroundCrépeau, C., Davis, C. R., & Maheswaran, M. (2007) · International Conference on Advanced Information Networking and Applications Workshops (WAINA) · doi:10.1109/ainaw.2007.54 · Cited by 32
“We also present a more precise description of the problem our protocol addresses.”
BackgroundCoping with misbehavior in mobile ad-hoc networks
Buchegger, S. (2004) · Infoscience (Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne) · doi:10.5075/epfl-thesis-2935 · Cited by 32
Transactional Security for a Distributed Reputation Management System
Fahrenholtz, D., & Lamersdorf, W. (2002) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/3-540-45705-4_23 · Cited by 32
“[19] provide a good overview of benefits, threats, challenges to, and about reputation systems in general.”
BackgroundE-commerce Auction Agents and Online-auction Dynamics
Gregg, D. G., & Walczak, S. M. (2003) · Electronic Markets · doi:10.1080/1019678032000092237 · Cited by 32
“It has been suggested that these reputation systems help to foster better behaviour in both buyers and sellers because they seek to enhance their online-auction reputation (Resnick, et al .”
BackgroundA reputation management system in structured peer-to-peer networks
Lee, S. Y., Kwon, O.-H., Kim, J., et al. (2005) · doi:10.1109/wetice.2005.9 · Cited by 32
“The feedbacks help participants decide whom to trust, encourage trustworthy behavior and deter dishonest people from participation [9].”
BackgroundTeubner, T., Hawlitschek, F., & Adam, M. T. P. (2019) · Business & Information Systems Engineering · doi:10.1007/s12599-018-00574-z · Cited by 31
“As the success of platform users depends on how well they are regarded by prospective transaction partners, platform operators make use of a variety of signals, tools, and systems to support users in creating and maintaining a positive reputation (Jøsang et al. 2007; Resnick et al. 2000).”
BackgroundJacovi, M., Guy, I., Kremer-Davidson, S., Porat, S., & Aizenbud-Reshef, N. (2014) · ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) · doi:10.1145/2531602.2531667 · Cited by 33
Design Issues in Permissioned Blockchains for Trusted Computing
Tsai, W., Bai, X., & Yu, L. (2017) · IEEE Symposium on Service-Oriented System Engineering (SOSE) · doi:10.1109/sose.2017.32 · Cited by 31
Reputation effects in peer-to-peer online markets: A meta-analysis∗
Jiao, R., Przepiorka, W., & Buskens, V. (2021) · Social Science Research · doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2020.102522 · Cited by 31
A Proposed Data Mining Approach for Internet Auction Fraud Detection
Ku, Y., Chen, Y., & Chiu, C. (2007) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-540-71549-8_22 · Cited by 31
“Resnick et al. (2000) define a reputation system as a system that “collects, distributes, and aggregates feedback about participants’ past behavior”.”
BackgroundA New Approach for the Trust Calculation in Social Networks
Nojoumian, M., & Lethbridge, T. C. (2008) · Communications in computer and information science · doi:10.1007/978-3-540-70760-8_6 · Cited by 31
“Most existing online reputation systems are centralized and have been designed to foster trust among strangers in e-commerce (Resnick et al, 2000).”
BackgroundMobilizing software expertise in personal knowledge exchanges
Gosain, S. (2007) · Journal of strategic information systems · doi:10.1016/j.jsis.2007.02.001 · Cited by 39
MUCS: A model for ubiquitous commerce support
Franco, L., Rosa, J., Barbosa, J. L. V., et al. (2010) · Electronic Commerce Research and Applications · doi:10.1016/j.elerap.2010.08.006 · Cited by 31
An auctioning reputation system based on anomaly
Rubin, S., Christodorescu, M., Ganapathy, V., Giffin, J. T., Kruger, L., Wang, H., & Kidd, N. A. (2005) · ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security (CCS) · doi:10.1145/1102120.1102156 · Cited by 31
Reputation systems, aggression, and deterrence in social interaction
Benard, S. (2012) · Social Science Research · doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2012.09.004 · Cited by 30
Guanxi, knowledge and online intermediaries in China
Davison, R. M., & Ou, C. X. (2008) · Chinese Management Studies · doi:10.1108/17506140810910935 · Cited by 31
Security and Trust in Online Social Networks
Carminati, B., Ferrari, E., & Viviani, M. (2014) · Synthesis lectures on information security, privacy, and trust · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-02339-2 · Cited by 33
Necessary, unpleasant, and disempowering
Woodruff, A. (2014) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/2556288.2557126 · Cited by 31
H-Trust: A Robust and Lightweight Group Reputation System for Peer-to-Peer Desktop Grid
Zhao, H., & Li, X. (2008) · doi:10.1109/icdcs.workshops.2008.96 · Cited by 31
“Recently, Ali Aydm Selcuk proposed a reputation-based trust management system [12].”
BackgroundMoreri, K., Fairbairn, D., & James, P. (2018) · International Journal of Geographical Information Systems · doi:10.1080/13658816.2017.1409353 · Cited by 31
Securing peer-to-peer networks usingtrusted computing
Balfe, S., Lakhani, A. D., & Paterson, K. G. (2005) · Institution of Engineering and Technology eBooks · doi:10.1049/pbpc006e_ch10 · Cited by 31
Huang, J. (2008) · TSpace (University of Toronto) · Cited by 31
Behavior-based reputation management in P2P file-sharing networks
Fan, X., Li, M., Ma, J., et al. (2011) · Journal of Computer and System Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.jcss.2011.10.021 · Cited by 30
“In the eBay system [3], there are a short comment on transaction and three discrete trust rating values: positive (1), negative (−1) and neutral (0).”
BackgroundTowards Quality of Experience-based reputation models for future web service provisioning
Ciszkowski, T., Mazurczyk, W., Kotulski, Z., Hoßfeld, T., Fiedler, M., & Collange, D. (2011) · Telecommunication Systems · doi:10.1007/s11235-011-9435-2 · Cited by 31
“A potential approach to the given challenge is the use of reputation systems [27,38,30].”
BackgroundHow can we reduce information asymmetries and enhance trust in ‘The Market for Lemons’?
Zavolokina, L., Schlegel, M., & Schwabe, G. (2020) · Information Systems and e-Business Management · doi:10.1007/s10257-020-00466-4 · Cited by 30
“Using reputation, sellers of low-quality cars achieve lower prices, which in turn results in a healthier market with a variety of quality and prices (Resnick et al. 2000).”
BackgroundChoice of Transaction Channels: The Effects of Product Characteristics on Market Evolution
Ba, S., Stallaert, J., Whinston, A. B., & Zhang, H. (2005) · Journal of Management Information Systems · doi:10.1080/07421222.2005.11045822 · Cited by 30
“Resnick et al. [37] also note that eBay attributes its high rate of successful transactions to its Feedback Forum.”
BackgroundTrust-Based Protection of Software Component Users and Designers
Herrmann, P. (2003) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/3-540-44875-6_6 · Cited by 30
Towards a formalization of value-centric trust in agent societies
Carter, J., & Ghorbani, A. A. (2004) · Web Intelligence and Agent Systems An International Journal · doi:10.5555/1234001.1234003 · Cited by 30
Transplanting Social Capital to the Online World: Insights from Two Experimental Studies
Chi, L., Chan, W. K. V., Seow, G. S., et al. (2009) · Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce · doi:10.1080/10919390903041931 · Cited by 30
“Forinstance, trust has been examined along several dimensions (e.g., [3], [4]).”
BackgroundA Trust and Reputation Model Considering Overall Peer Consulting Distribution
Chen, J., Xie, L., Gan, X., et al. (2011) · IEEE Transactions on Systems Man and Cybernetics - Part A Systems and Humans · doi:10.1109/tsmca.2011.2162497 · Cited by 30
An options-based solution to the sequential auction problem
Juda, A. I., & Parkes, D. C. (2009) · Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.artint.2009.01.002 · Cited by 30
Consensus-Aware Sociopsychological Trust Model for Wireless Sensor Networks
Rathore, H., Badarla, V., & Shit, S. (2016) · ACM Transactions on Sensor Networks · doi:10.1145/2903721 · Cited by 30
“The model was easy to implement and did not incorporate the detection of various attacks [Resnick et al. 2000; Jonker and Treur 1999].”
MethodA Survey of Trust Use and Modeling in Real Online Systems
Massa, P. (2013) · IGI Global eBooks · doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-2803-8.ch012 · Cited by 28
Why Trust Seals Don’t Work: A Study of User Perceptions and Behavior
Kirlappos, I., Sasse, M. A., & Harvey, N. (2012) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-30921-2_18 · Cited by 29
Media Richness in Online Consumer Interactions
Pollach, I. (2008) · Information Resources Management Journal · doi:10.4018/irmj.2008100103 · Cited by 30
Generic Reliability Trust Model.
Mahoney, G., Myrvold, W. J., & Shoja, G. C. (2005) · Conference on Privacy, Security and Trust · Cited by 31
Reputation in self-organized communication systems and beyond
Mundinger, J., & Boudec, J. L. (2006) · doi:10.1145/1190326.1190328 · Cited by 30
Error and attack tolerance of collective problem solving: The DARPA Shredder Challenge
Stefanovitch, N., Alshamsi, A., Cebrián, M., & Rahwan, I. (2014) · EPJ Data Science · doi:10.1140/epjds/s13688-014-0013-1 · Cited by 29
The role of reputation systems in digital discrimination
Kas, J., Corten, R., & van de Rijt, A. (2021) · Socio-Economic Review · doi:10.1093/ser/mwab012 · Cited by 28
DO DUGG DIGGERS DIGG DILIGENTLY?
Halavais, A. (2009) · Information Communication & Society · doi:10.1080/13691180802660636 · Cited by 29
“The effect of such reputation systems on eBay and similar online marketplaces has been well studied (Jøsang et al. 2007; Bolton et al. 2005; Houser & Wooders 2006; Resnick et al. 2000).”
BackgroundPrivacy, Trust, and Disclosure Online
Paine, C. B., & Joinson, A. (2008) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511813740.003 · Cited by 30
Bente, G., Dratsch, T., Rehbach, S., Reyl, M., & Lushaj, B. (2014) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-07293-7_45 · Cited by 30
Social Reputation: a Mechanism for Flexible Self-Regulation of Multiagent Systems
Hahn, C., Fley, B., Florian, M., Spresny, D., & Fischer, K. (2009) · RePEc: Research Papers in Economics · Cited by 29
Changing neighbours: improving tag-based cooperation
Griffiths, N., & Flucke, G. (2010) · Warwick Research Archive Portal (University of Warwick) · doi:10.5555/1838206.1838241 · Cited by 29
VectorTrust: Trust Vector Aggregation Scheme for Trust Management in Peer-to-Peer Networks
Zhao, H., & Li, X. (2009) · Proceedings/Proceedings - International Conference on Computer Communications and Networks · doi:10.1109/icccn.2009.5235290 · Cited by 29
Establishing trust in distributed storage providers
Caronni, G., & Waldvogel, M. (2004) · International Conference on Peer-to-Peer Computing · doi:10.1109/ptp.2003.1231512 · Cited by 29
Evaluating Reputation in Multi-agents Systems
Mui, L., Halberstadt, A., & Mohtashemi, M. (2003) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/3-540-36609-1_10 · Cited by 31
Trust management with delegation in grouped peer-to-peer communities
Ravichandran, A., & Yoon, J. (2006) · ACM Symposium on Access Control Models and Technologies (SACMAT) · doi:10.1145/1133058.1133070 · Cited by 28
“…messaging Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page.”
BackgroundA Fuzzy Trust Management Framework for Service Web
Nepal, ., Sherchan, W., Hunklinger, J., et al. (2010) · IEEE International Conference on Web Services (ICWS) · doi:10.1109/icws.2010.52 · Cited by 28
“Trust management has been studied in a variety of disciplines including economics, computer science, marketing, politics, sociology and psychology [1], [7], [5], [18], [19], [15].”
BackgroundGaggioli, A., & Riva, G. (2008) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.321.5895.1443a · Cited by 28
Building consumer trust in the cloud: an experimental analysis of the cloud trust label approach
van der Werff, L., Fox, G., Masevic, I., Emeakaroha, V. C., Morrison, J. P., & Lynn, T. (2019) · Journal of Cloud Computing Advances Systems and Applications · doi:10.1186/s13677-019-0129-8 · Cited by 29
“The central trust building mechanism in e-commerce to date has been reputation systems [39, 48].”
BackgroundSeller's creditworthiness in the online service market: A study from the control perspective
Zheng, H., Xu, B., & Lin, Z. (2019) · Decision Support Systems · doi:10.1016/j.dss.2019.113118 · Cited by 30
Context-Aware Trust Management System for IoT Applications with Multiple Domains
Li, N., Varadharajan, V., & Nepal, . (2019) · IEEE International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems (ICDCS) · doi:10.1109/icdcs.2019.00116 · Cited by 28
“A newcomer can also be added as a contact [10].”
BackgroundPrivacy enhanced personalization in e-learning
Anwar, M. M., Greer, J. E., & Brooks, C. A. (2006) · doi:10.1145/1501434.1501485 · Cited by 28
CellTrust: a reputation model for C2C commerce
Lax, G., & Sarnè, G. M. L. (2008) · Electronic Commerce Research · doi:10.1007/s10660-008-9019-8 · Cited by 28
“In particular, the knowledge about the past history of a user can represent his trustworthiness by means of the concept of reputation [30,31,47].”
BackgroundWhen Nobody Knows Your Name: Country-of-Origin as a Reputational Signal for Online Businesses
Reuber, A. R., & Fischer, E. M. (2011) · Corporate Reputation Review · doi:10.1057/crr.2011.2 · Cited by 29
“Our study also serves to link prior research on off-line reputational signaling with studies regarding online reputation systems (cf. Resnick et al. , 2000 ).”
BackgroundResultProbabilistic prediction of peers’ performance in P2P networks
Despotovic, Z., & Aberer, K. (2005) · Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.engappai.2005.06.001 · Cited by 28
“Reputation systems (Resnick et al., 2000) offer a viable solution to the problem of encouraging trustworthy behavior in large scale globe spanning online communities.”
Background
Metadata
- Authors
- Resnick, P., Kuwabara, K., Zeckhauser, R., & Friedman, E.
- Affiliations
- University of Michigan (US)
- Harvard University (US)
- Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey (US)
- Venue
- Communications of the ACM
- Published
- 2000-12
- Volume
- 43
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 45-48
- ISSN
- 0001-0782 (ISSN-L)
- 1557-7317
- OpenAlex
- W2337430557
- Cited by
- 2,190
- References
- 7
- Citations by year
- 2026: 38 · 2025: 32 · 2024: 37 · 2023: 33 · 2022: 36 · 2021: 52 · 2020: 58 · 2019: 66 · 2018: 66 · 2017: 87 · 2016: 87 · 2015: 93 · 2014: 110 · 2013: 111 · 2012: 134
- FWCI
- 145.25
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Communications of the ACM (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation (9977999)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Access Control and Trust
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Expert finding and Q&A systems
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Privacy, Security, and Data Protection
- Keywords
- reputation systems, online trust, online interaction, e-commerce, peer reputation
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-11, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-11 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
