Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41880471›Full record

ArticlePloS one2026

A two-dimensional framework for profiling online reviewer behavior.

Luisa Stracqualursi, Patrizia Agati

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Luisa StracqualursiDepartment of Statistics, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8022-1377
Patrizia AgatiDepartment of Statistics, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Consumers frequently rely on extreme online reviews-highly positive or highly negative-for clarity and detailed insights. However, conflicting extremes can generate confusion and erode trust in rating systems, highlighting the need for additional metrics that provide deeper insight into reviewer behavior. To address this, we introduce a novel and intuitive two-dimensional framework for profiling reviewer behavior through two complementary indices: the Reviewer Extremeness Index (REI), which quantifies the frequency of extreme ratings, and the Reviewer Polarity Index (RPI), which measures the directional imbalance between positive and negative extremes, along with its intensity. The framework maps each reviewer onto a two-dimensional plane whose axes are REI and RPI, identifying nine archetypal profiles of reviewers' historical extreme behaviors. As a case study, we applied this approach to three million Amazon book reviews, demonstrating its practical value in a real-world context. This framework provides dual utility. For consumers, it offers crucial contextual information: knowing a reviewer's archetype allows for a more nuanced interpretation of their feedback. For online retail platforms, the framework serves as a scalable tool to monitor reviewer behavior and identify systematic rating patterns that may warrant further scrutiny, such as those potentially associated with incentivized reviewing. By making reviewer tendencies transparent, our model contributes to a more reliable and trustworthy digital marketplace ecosystem.

Identifiers

PMID41880471
PMCPMC13016354

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.