Cited by 48Digital Marketing and Social MediaNames, Identity, and Discrimination ResearchEthics and Social Impacts of AI

Your Hometown Matters: Popularity-Difference Bias in Online Reputation Platforms

Open access
Kokkodis, Marios, Lappas, Theodoros·2020·Information Systems Research

Abstract

We study a new source of bias in online review platforms that originates from the popularity difference between the traveling reviewer’s hometown and destination.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1287/isre.2019.0895

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Authors
Kokkodis, M., & Lappas, T.
Affiliations
  • Boston College (US)
  • Stevens Institute of Technology (US)
Corresponding author
Kokkodis, Marios
Venue
Information Systems Research
Published
2020-06
Volume
31
Issue
2
Pages
412-430
ISSN
  • 1047-7047 (ISSN-L)
  • 1526-5536
OpenAlex
W2996556610
Cited by
48
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 3
FWCI
8.34
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Information Systems Research (publishedVersion)
  • SSRN Electronic Journal (acceptedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Digital Marketing and Social Media
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Names, Identity, and Discrimination Research
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
Keywords
online review platforms, reviewer bias, online reviews, destination popularity, travel reviews

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.

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