Reference health
Production of Online Word-of-Mouth: Peer Effects and the Moderation of User Characteristics
2 of 46 checkable references need attention · checked 2026-08-28
At the dated check, the references listed below either did not resolve in Crossref or DataCite, or carried a retraction notice. Each one is shown with the registry record that put it there.
5 without a DOI — not checked. A reference deposited without a DOI is never matched by title or guessed at; it stays outside the checked set, and this line discloses that.
References needing attention
does not resolve to a known work10.1017/s0003055400117496
does not resolve to a known work10.1509/jmkg.74.2.133
The 44 checked references that resolve
resolves10.1198/jasa.2009.ap08746
Synthetic Control Methods for Comparative Case Studies: Estimating the Effect of California’s Tobacco Control Program
resolves10.1086/261662
Giving with Impure Altruism: Applications to Charity and Ricardian Equivalence
resolves10.1016/j.jpubeco.2007.06.002
Giving gifts to groups: How altruism depends on the number of recipients
resolves10.3982/ecta7384
Social Image and the 50-50 Norm: A Theoretical and Experimental Analysis of Audience Effects
resolves10.1111/j.1468-0262.2006.00668.x
Identification and Inference in Nonlinear Difference-in-Differences Models
resolves10.1509/jmr.13.0238
Broadcasting and Narrowcasting: How Audience Size Affects What People Share
resolves10.1287/isre.1090.0265
<b>Research Note</b>—The Impact of Community Commitment on Participation in Online Communities
resolves10.1016/j.dss.2010.11.009
Exploring determinants of voting for the “helpfulness” of online user reviews: A text mining approach
resolves10.1257/aer.90.5.1397
Minimum Wages and Employment: A Case Study of the Fast-Food Industry in New Jersey and Pennsylvania: Reply
resolves10.2753/mis0742-1222230207
When Online Reviews Meet Hyperdifferentiation: A Study of the Craft Beer Industry
resolves10.1287/mnsc.49.10.1407.17308
The Digitization of Word of Mouth: Promise and Challenges of Online Feedback Mechanisms
resolves10.1016/j.dss.2008.04.001
Do online reviews matter? — An empirical investigation of panel data
resolves10.1287/isre.1080.0193
Examining the Relationship Between Reviews and Sales: The Role of Reviewer Identity Disclosure in Electronic Markets
resolves10.1287/isre.2013.0512
“Popularity Effect” in User-Generated Content: Evidence from Online Product Reviews
resolves10.1287/isre.1070.0114
Competition Among Virtual Communities and User Valuation: The Case of Investing-Related Communities
resolves10.1111/poms.12043
First Step in Social Media: Measuring the Influence of Online Management Responses on Customer Satisfaction
resolves10.25300/misq/2017/41.4.02
Social Network Integration and User Content Generation: Evidence from Natural Experiments1
resolves10.1287/isre.2017.0750
Extrinsic versus Intrinsic Rewards for Contributing Reviews in an Online Platform
resolves10.1016/j.elerap.2011.10.003
Evaluating content quality and helpfulness of online product reviews: The interplay of review helpfulness vs. review content
resolves10.1016/j.jebo.2010.08.007
Social image concerns and prosocial behavior: Field evidence from a nonlinear incentive scheme
resolves10.1287/mnsc.2014.2082
Do I Follow My Friends or the Crowd? Information Cascades in Online Movie Ratings
resolves10.1509/jmkg.70.3.074
Word of Mouth for Movies: Its Dynamics and Impact on Box Office Revenue
resolves10.1509/jmkr.38.2.170.18841
In Search of Negative Customer Feedback: The Effect of Expecting to Evaluate on Satisfaction Evaluations
resolves10.1287/mksc.1110.0684
Network Characteristics and the Value of Collaborative User-Generated Content
resolves10.1111/poms.12592
Online Reviews and Collaborative Service Provision: A Signal‐Jamming Model
resolves10.1287/isre.2017.0741
Socially Nudged: A Quasi-Experimental Study of Friends’ Social Influence in Online Product Ratings
resolves10.1257/aer.101.4.1601
Group Size and Incentives to Contribute: A Natural Experiment at Chinese Wikipedia
The 5 references without a DOI — listed, not checked
no DOI — not checkedref30
no DOI — not checkedWhat Influences Customers? Online Comments
no DOI — not checkedWhat Makes a Helpful Review?
no DOI — not checkedref44
no DOI — not checkedref49
What this badge says. CiteStamped means the CHECKABLE references of this
work were clean at the dated check: each resolved to a known work in a public registry, and none
carried a retraction notice at that time. It says nothing about the quality, findings,
or importance of the work itself, and nothing about references deposited without a DOI.
checked 2026-08-28 — re-checked daily as this page is visited; titles and statuses come from Crossref and DataCite and are not part of the signed record
Embed this badge
Both snippets point at the live badge image and link back to this page. The badge re-renders from the daily check, so an embed never goes stale by more than a day of visits.
<a href="https://citestamp.com/citestamped/10.2139/ssrn.2899452"><img src="https://citestamp.com/citestamped/10.2139/ssrn.2899452/badge.svg" alt="CiteStamped reference-health badge" width="460" height="64"></a>
[](https://citestamp.com/citestamped/10.2139/ssrn.2899452)