SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 28 Sayı: Özel Sayı Özel Sayı

Nonlinear Multi Criteria Decision Making for Financial Performance Evaluation: Evidence from Borsa Istanbul

Finansal Performans Değerlendirmesi için Doğrusal Olmayan Çok Kriterli Karar Verme : Borsa İstanbul Örneği

Ali Özarslan(HACETTEPE ÜNİVERSİTESİ, REKTÖRLÜK)0000-0002-9407-1787
Pages
22–42
Publication Date
2026-10-21
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The results show that the qualified audit opinion, market-to-book ratio and leverage ratio are the main discriminators of financial performance, with remarkable temporal stability over the three years.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:In this study, we evaluate the financial performance of 157 non-financial firms listed on Borsa Istanbul for the period 2022–2024 by a novel nonlinear multi-criteria decision-making framework.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The criteria used to assess financial performance are from profitability, liquidity, solvency, operational efficiency, market valuation, audit quality and growth perspectives.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The results show that the qualified audit opinion, market-to-book ratio and leverage ratio are the main discriminators of financial performance, with remarkable temporal stability over the three years.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:2022–2024 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Finansal Performans · Çok Kriterli Karar Verme · Doğrusal Olmayan Birleştirme

Abstract

In this study, we evaluate the financial performance of 157 non-financial firms listed on Borsa Istanbul for the period 2022–2024 by a novel nonlinear multi-criteria decision-making framework. The criteria used to assess financial performance are from profitability, liquidity, solvency, operational efficiency, market valuation, audit quality and growth perspectives. In order to overcome the limitations of the linear aggregation, the weights of the objective criteria are obtained through an ensemble of three complementary methods that are LOPCOW, MEREC and SITDE. The results show that the qualified audit opinion, market-to-book ratio and leverage ratio are the main discriminators of financial performance, with remarkable temporal stability over the three years. Three recently developed nonlinear ranking algorithms based on triangular norms, DOBI, ALWAS and SWEM, are used to rank the companies for each year, and the results are combined across years via an extended Borda count to obtain a consensus ranking. The consensus ranking identifies ARSAN, ESCOM, and MGROS as the top-performing firms, reflecting strong profitability, moderate leverage, and clean audit opinions, while MARTI, TEKTU, and LYDHO consistently rank at the bottom due to high leverage, weak profitability, and qualified audit opinions. The findings reveal a high degree of inter-method concordance, strong year‑to‑year consistency, and exceptional robustness to weight perturbations, outlier treatment, and rank reversal tests.

Özet

Bu çalışmada Borsa İstanbul’da işlem gören 157 finansal olmayan firmanın 2022, 2023 ve 2024 mali yıllarındaki finansal performansı, yeni bir doğrusal olmayan çok kriterli karar verme çerçevesiyle değerlendirilmektedir. Finansal performansı değerlendirmek için kullanılan kriterler karlılık, likidite, ödeme gücü, operasyonel verimlilik, piyasa değeri, denetim kalitesi ve büyüme perspektiflerinden oluşmaktadır. Doğrusal toplamanın sınırlamalarının üstesinden gelmek için, objektif kriterlerin ağırlıkları, LOPCOW, MEREC ve SITDE olmak üzere üç tamamlayıcı yöntemin birleşimiyle elde edilmiştir. Sonuçlar, nitelikli denetim görüşü, piyasa değeri/defter değeri oranı ve kaldıraç oranının finansal performansın ana ayırt edicileri olduğunu ve bu bulguların üç yıl boyunca istikrarlı kaldığını göstermektedir. Şirketleri sıralamak için yakın zamanda geliştirilen, üçgen normlara dayalı üç doğrusal olmayan sıralama algoritması (DOBI, ALWAS ve SWEM) her yıl için ayrı ayrı kullanılmış ve sonuçlar, genişletilmiş Borda sayımı yoluyla yıllar arasında birleştirilerek bir konsensüs sıralaması elde edilmiştir. Konsensüs sıralaması, güçlü kârlılık, ılımlı kaldıraç ve temiz denetim görüşlerini yansıtacak şekilde ARSAN, ESCOM ve MGROS'u en iyi performans gösteren firmalar olarak belirlerken; MARTI, TEKTU ve LYDHO yüksek kaldıraç, zayıf kârlılık ve nitelikli denetim görüşleri nedeniyle sürekli olarak en alt sıralarda yer almaktadır. Bulgular, yöntemler arası yüksek derecede uyumluluk, güçlü yıllar arası tutarlılık ve ağırlık değişimlerine, aykırı değer işleme ve sıralama tersine çevirme testlerine karşı olağanüstü sağlamlık ortaya koymaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Özarslan, A. (2026). Nonlinear Multi Criteria Decision Making for Financial Performance Evaluation: Evidence from Borsa Istanbul. Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 28 Sayı: Özel Sayı Özel Sayı, 22–42. https://doi.org/10.33707/akuiibfd.1948460

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (90)

  1. Altman, E. I. (1993). Corporate Financial Distress and Bankruptcy: A Complete Guide to Predicting & Avoiding Distress and Profiting from Bankruptcy (2nd ed.). John Wiley & Sons, New York.
  2. Ataei, Y., Mahmoudi, A., Feylizadeh, M. R., & Li, D. F. (2020). Ordinal priority approach (OPA) in multiple attribute decision-making. Applied Soft Computing, 86, 105893. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2019.105893
  3. Beliakov, G., Pradera, A., & Calvo, T. (2007). Aggregation functions: A guide for practitioners Vol. 221, 1-304. Heidelberg: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-73721-6
  4. Biswas, S., Khawash, N., Chatterjee, P., & Zavadskas, E. K. (2026). Preference using Root Value based on Aggregated Normalizations (PROVAN): A data-driven method for socio-economic and innovation assessment. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 102343. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seps.2025.102343
  5. Bonferroni, C. (1950). Sulle medie multiple di potenze. Bollettino dell'Unione Matematica Italiana, 5(3-4), 267- 270.
  6. Borda, J. C. (1781). Mémoire sur les élections au scrutin. Histoire de l’Acad´emie Royale des Sciences.
  7. Bošković, S., Švadlenka, L., Jovčić, S., Dobrodolac, M., Simić, V., & Bacanin, N. (2023). An alternative ranking order method accounting for two-step normalization (AROMAN)—A case study of the electric vehicle selection problem. IEEE access, 11, 39496-39507. https://doi.org/10.1109/access.2023.3265818
  8. Brealey, R. A., Myers, S. C. & Allen, F. (2017). Principles of Corporate Finance. New York, McGraw-Hill Education.
  9. Charnes, A., Cooper, W. W., & Rhodes, E. (1978). Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. European journal of operational research, 2(6), 429-444.
  10. Damodaran, A. (2012). Investment Valuation: Tools and Techniques for Determining the Value of Any Asset, John Wiley & Sons.
  11. Demirhan, A., Ulutaş, A., & Pala, O. (2025). BİST’te İşlem Gören Seçili Ticari Bankaların LODECI ve ARLON Yöntemleriyle Performansının Değerlendirilmesi. İzmir Journal of Economics, 40(3), 918-941. https://doi.org/10.24988/ije.1595885
  12. Dezert, J., Tchamova, A., Han, D., & Tacnet, J. M. (2020). The SPOTIS rank reversal free method for multi-criteria decision-making support. In 2020 IEEE 23rd international conference on information fusion (FUSION) (pp. 1- 8). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.23919/fusion45008.2020.9190347
  13. Diakoulaki, D., Mavrotas, G., & Papayannakis, L. (1995). Determining objective weights in multiple criteria problems: The CRITIC method. Computers & operations research, 22(7), 763- 770.https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-0548(94)00059-h
  14. Dwork, C., Kumar, R., Naor, M., & Sivakumar, D. (2001). Rank aggregation methods for the web. In Proceedings of the 10th international conference on World Wide Web (pp. 613-622). https://doi.org/10.1145/371920.372165
  15. Ecer, F. (2021). A consolidated MCDM framework for performance assessment of battery electric vehicles based on ranking strategies. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 143, 110916. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2021.110916
  16. Ecer, F., & Pamučar, D. (2022). A novel LOPCOW‐DOBI multi‐criteria sustainability performance assessment methodology: An application in developing country banking sector. Omega, 112, 102690. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2022.102690
  17. Ecer, F., Pamučar, D., Yaran Ogel, I., & Simic, V. (2026). Industrial smart shoes design decisions in metaverse for hazardous industries through the fuzzy DIBR–SWEM methodology. Technology in Society, 87, 103344. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2026.103344
  18. Fama, E. F., & French, K. R. (1992). The cross section of expected stock returns. The Journal of Finance, 47(2), 427–465. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6261.1992.tb04398.x
  19. Francis, J. R. (2004). What do we know about audit quality? The British Accounting Review, 36(4), 345–368. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bar.2004.09.003
  20. Fridson, M. S. & Alvarez, F. (2022). Financial statement analysis: a practitioner's guide. John Wiley & Sons.
  21. Gligorić, Z., Gligoric, M., Miljanovic, I., Lutovac, S., & Milutinovic, A. (2023). Assessing criteria weights by the symmetry point of criterion (novel SPC Method)–Application in the efficiency evaluation of the mineral deposit multi-criteria partitioning algorithm. CMES-Computer Modeling in Engineering & Sciences, 136(1), 955-979. https://doi.org/10.32604/cmes.2023.025021
  22. Gligorić, Z., Gorçun, O. F., Gligoric, M., Pamucar, D., Simic, V., & Kucukonder, H. (2024a). Evaluating the deep learning software tools for large-scale enterprises using a novel TODIFFA-MCDM framework. *Journal of King Saud University - Computer and Information Sciences, 36*(5), 102079. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jksuci.2024.102079
  23. Gopisetty, Y. B., & Sama, H. R. (2025). Skewness impact through distributional evaluation (SITDE) method: a new method in multi-criteria decision making. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 76(6), 1204-1224. https://doi.org/10.1080/01605682.2024.2416910
  24. Grabisch, M., Marichal, J. L., Mesiar, R., & Pap, E. (2008). Aggregation functions (Vol. 127). Cambridge University Press. 6th International Symposium on Intelligent Systems and Informatics, Subotica, Serbia, pp. 1-7 https://doi.org/10.1109/sisy.2008.4664901
  25. Haseli, G., & Sheikh, R. (2022). Base criterion method (BCM). In Multiple criteria decision making: Techniques, Analysis and Applications (pp. 17-38). Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978- 981-16-7414-3_2
  26. Hwang, CL., & Yoon, K. (1981). Methods for Multiple Attribute Decision Making. In: Multiple Attribute Decision Making. Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems, vol 186. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-48318-9_3
  27. Investing. (2025). BIST stock market data. Retrieved [30.04.2026] from https://www.investing.com/equities/turkey
  28. Jahan, A., & Edwards, K. L. (2015). A state-of-the-art survey on the influence of normalization techniques in ranking: Improving the materials selection process in engineering design. Materials & Design (1980-2015), 65, 335-342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2014.09.022
  29. KAP. (2025). BIST Şirketleri. Retrieved [30.04.2026], from https://www.kap.org.tr/tr/bist-sirketler
  30. Kara, K., Yalçın, G. C., Simic, V., Baysal, Z., & Pamučar, D. (2024). The alternative ranking using two-step logarithmic normalization method for benchmarking the supply chain performance of countries. Socio- economic planning sciences, 92, 101822. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seps.2024.101822
  31. Katrancı, A., Kundakcı, N., & Pamučar, D. (2025). Financial performance evaluation of firms in BIST 100 index with ITARA and COBRA methods. Financial Innovation, 11(1), 34. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40854-024-00704-5
  32. Kaya, A., Pamučar, D., Gürler, H. E., & Ozcalici, M. (2024). Determining the financial performance of the firms in the Borsa Istanbul sustainability index: integrating multi criteria decision making methods with simulation. Financial Innovation, 10(1), 21. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40854-023-00512-3
  33. Keeney, R. L., & Raiffa, H. (1993). Decisions with multiple objectives: preferences and value trade-offs. Cambridge university press. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9781139174084
  34. Keršuliene, V., Zavadskas, E. K., & Turskis, Z. (2010). Selection of rational dispute resolution method by applying new step‐wise weight assessment ratio analysis (SWARA). Journal of business economics and management, 11(2), 243-258. https://doi.org/10.3846/jbem.2010.12
  35. Keshavarz-Ghorabaee, M. K., Zavadskas, E. K., Turskis, Z., & Antucheviciene, J. (2016). A new combinative distance-based assessment (CODAS) method for multi-criteria decision-making. Economic Computation and Economic Cybernetics Studies and Research, 50(3), 25-44.
  36. Keshavarz-Ghorabaee, M., Amiri, M., Zavadskas, E. K., & Antucheviciene, J. (2025). Simulation-aided analysis of a deviation-based pairwise assessment ratio technique (DEPART) for MCDM. International journal of computers communications & control, 20(3). https://doi.org/10.15837/ijccc.2025.3.7038
  37. Keshavarz-Ghorabaee, M., Amiri, M., Zavadskas, E. K., Turskis, Z., & Antucheviciene, J. (2021). Determination of objective weights using a new method based on the removal effects of criteria (MEREC). Symmetry, 13(4), 525. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym13040525
  38. Keshavarz-Ghorabaee, M., Zavadskas, E. K., Olfat, L., & Turskis, Z. (2015). Multi-criteria inventory classification using a new method of evaluation based on distance from average solution (EDAS). Informatica, 26(3), 435- 451. https://doi.org/10.15388/informatica.2015.57
  39. Koopmans, T. C. (1951). An analysis of production as an efficient combination of activities. T.C. Koopmans, A. Alchian, G.B. Dantizg, N. Georgescu-Roegen, P.A. Samuelson, A.W. Tucker (Eds.) Activity analysis of production and allocation. (33-97).
  40. Lahdelma, R., & Salminen, P. (2001). SMAA-2: Stochastic multicriteria acceptability analysis for group decision making. Operations research, 49(3), 444-454. https://doi.org/10.1287/opre.49.3.444.11220
  41. Mardani, A., Jusoh, A., & Zavadskas, E. K. (2015). Fuzzy multiple criteria decision-making techniques and applications–Two decades review from 1994 to 2014. Expert systems with Applications, 42(8), 4126-4148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2015.01.003
  42. Opricovic, S. (1998). Multicriteria optimization of civil engineering systems. Faculty of civil engineering, Belgrade, 2(1), 5-21.
  43. Öztanır, İ. (2025). Comparative Financial Efficiency and Performance Analysis with TOPSIS and MOORA Methods: An Application on Logistic Companies. Journal of Productivity, 59(3), 531-548.
  44. Pala, O. (2024). Assessment of the social progress on European Union by logarithmic decomposition of criteria importance. Expert Systems with Applications, 238, 121846. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2023.121846
  45. Pamučar, D., & Ćirović, G. (2015). The selection of transport and handling resources in logistics centers using Multi-Attributive Border Approximation area Comparison (MABAC). Expert systems with applications, 42(6), 3016-3028. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2014.11.057
  46. Pamučar, D., Deveci, M., Gokasar, I., Işık, M., & Zizovic, M. (2021). Circular economy concepts in urban mobility alternatives using integrated DIBR method and fuzzy Dombi CoCoSo model. Journal of cleaner production, 323, 129096. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.129096
  47. Pamučar, D., Ecer, F., Gligorić, Z., Gligorić, M., & Deveci, M. (2024a). A novel WENSLO and ALWAS multicriteria methodology and its application to green growth performance evaluation. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 71, 9510-9525. https://doi.org/10.1109/tem.2023.3321697
  48. Pamučar, D., Simic, V., Görçün, Ö. F., & Küçükönder, H. (2024b). Selection of the best Big Data platform using COBRAC-ARTASI methodology with adaptive standardized intervals. Expert Systems with Applications, 239, 122312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2023.122312
  49. Pamučar, D., Stević, Ž., & Sremac, S. (2018). A new model for determining weight coefficients of criteria in mcdm models: Full consistency method (FUCOM). symmetry, 10(9), 393. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym10090393
  50. Puška, A., Nedeljković, M., Pamučar, D., Božanić, D., & Simić, V. (2024a). Application of the new simple weight calculation (SIWEC) method in the case study in the sales channels of agricultural products. MethodsX, 13, 102930. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mex.2024.102930
  51. Puška, A., Štilić, A., Pamučar, D., Božanić, D., & Nedeljković, M. (2024b). Introducing a Novel multi-criteria Ranking of Alternatives with Weights of Criterion (RAWEC) model. MethodsX, 12, 102628. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mex.2024.102628
  52. Rezaei, J. (2015). Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method. Omega, 53, 49-57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2014.11.009
  53. Ross, S. A., Westerfield, R. W., & Jordan, B. D. (2019). Fundamentals of corporate finance. McGraw-Hill.
  54. Roy, B. (1968). Classement et choix en présence de points de vue multiples. Revue française d'informatique et de recherche opérationnelle, 2(8), 57-75.https://doi.org/10.1051/ro/196802v100571
  55. Saaty, T. L. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process. McGraw-Hill, New York.
  56. Sałabun, W., & Urbaniak, K. (2020). A new coefficient of rankings similarity in decision-making problems. In International conference on computational science (pp. 632-645). Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-50417-5_47
  57. Shannon, C. E. (1948). A mathematical theory of communication. The Bell system technical journal, 27(3), 379-423.https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1538-7305.1948.tb01338.x
  58. Titman, S. & Wessels, R. (1988). The determinants of capital structure choice. The Journal of Finance, 43(1), 1- 19.
  59. Triantaphyllou, E., & Sánchez, A. (1997). A sensitivity analysis approach for some deterministic multi‐criteria decision‐making methods. Decision sciences, 28(1), 151-194. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.1997.tb01306.x
  60. Ulutaş, A., Ecer, F., & Turskis, Z. (2025a). Multiple Normalization Rating Analysis (MUNRA) and its application to digital supplier selection in the textile industry. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 31(6), 2074-2104. https://doi.org/10.3846/tede.2025.25346
  61. Ulutaş, A., Topal, A., & Ecer, F. (2025b). The Alternative Prioritization and Assessment System (ALPAS) method for environmental performance evaluation. Mathematics, 13(20), 3333. https://doi.org/10.3390/math13203333
  62. Wen, Z., Liao, H., & Zavadskas, E. K. (2020). MACONT: Mixed aggregation by comprehensive normalization technique for multi-criteria analysis. Informatica, 31(4), 857-880. https://doi.org/10.15388/20-infor417
  63. Więckowski, J., Kizielewicz, B., Shekhovtsov, A., & Sałabun, W. (2023). RANCOM: A novel approach to identifying criteria relevance based on inaccuracy expert judgments. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 122, 106114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engappai.2023.106114
  64. Yager, R. R. (1988). On ordered weighted averaging aggregation operators in multicriteria decisionmaking. IEEE Transactions on systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 18(1), 183-190. https://doi.org/10.1109/21.87068
  65. Yalçın, G. C., Kara, K., & Özyürek, H. (2025). Evaluating financial performance of companies in the Borsa Istanbul Sustainability Index using the CRITIC-MABAC method. Spectrum of Operational Research, 2(1), 364- 387. https://doi.org/10.31181/sor21202530
  66. Yalcin, N., Bayrakdaroglu, A., & Kahraman, C. (2012). Application of fuzzy multi-criteria decision making methods for financial performance evaluation of Turkish manufacturing industries. Expert systems with applications, 39(1), 350-364. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2011.07.024
  67. Yazdani, M., Zarate, P., Kazimieras Zavadskas, E., & Turskis, Z. (2019). A combined compromise solution (CoCoSo) method for multi-criteria decision-making problems. Management decision, 57(9), 2501-2519. https://doi.org/10.1108/md-05-2017-0458
  68. Zakeri, S., Chatterjee, P., Konstantas, D., & Ecer, F. (2023). A decision analysis model for material selection using simple ranking process. Scientific Reports, 13(1), 8631. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-35405-z
  69. Zavadskas, E. K., & Podvezko, V. (2016). Integrated determination of objective criteria weights in MCDM. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making, 15(02), 267-283. https://doi.org/10.1142/s0219622016500036
  70. Zavadskas, E. K., & Turskis, Z. (2010). A new additive ratio assessment (ARAS) method in multicriteria decision‐ making. Technological and economic development of economy, 16(2), 159-172. https://doi.org/10.3846/tede.2010.10
  71. Zavadskas, E. K., & Turskis, Z. (2011). Multiple criteria decision making (MCDM) methods in economics: an overview. Technological and economic development of economy, 17(2), 397-427. https://doi.org/10.3846/20294913.2011.593291
  72. Zavadskas, E. K., Kaklauskas, A., & Šarka, V. (1994). The new method of multicriteria complex proportional assessment of projects.
  73. Zavadskas, E. K., Turskis, Z., & Kildienė, S. (2014). State of art surveys of overviews on MCDM/MADM methods. Technological and economic development of economy, 20(1), 165-179. https://doi.org/10.3846/20294913.2014.892037
  74. Zavadskas, E. K., Turskis, Z., Antucheviciene, J., & Zakarevicius, A. (2012). Optimization of weighted aggregated sum product assessment. Elektronika ir elektrotechnika, 122(6), 3-6. https://doi.org/10.5755/j01.eee.122.6.1810
  75. Žižović, M., & Pamučar, D. (2019). New model for determining criteria weights: Level Based Weight Assessment (LBWA) model. Decision making: applications in management and engineering, 2(2), 126-137. https://doi.org/10.31181/dmame1902102z
  76. Žižović, M., Pamučar, D., Albijanić, M., Chatterjee, P., & Pribićević, I. (2020). Eliminating rank reversal problem using a new multi-attribute model—The RAFSI method. Mathematics, 8(6), 1015. https://doi.org/10.3390/math8061015
  77. Zopounidis, C., & Doumpos, M. (2002). Multicriteria classification and sorting methods: A literature review. European Journal of Operational Research, 138(2), 229-246. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0377-2217(01)00243-0
  78. Liu, Z., Zhang, D., & Liu, Q. (2026). An Enhanced Multi-Criteria Decision Making Framework for Evaluating LLM- Integrated Smart Product-Service Systems Using Spherical Fuzzy Rough Numbers. Applied Soft Computing, 114797. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2026.114797
  79. Riaz, M., Shahzadi, T., Saqlain, M., & Merigo, J. M. (2026). Integrated LOPCOW-AROMAN framework with softmax hamacher information aggregation: Enhancing airport security screening efficiency in uncertain environment. Information Sciences, 122776. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2025.122776
  80. Şimşek, A. İ., Gür, Y. E., & Ünal, E. (2025). Innovative MCDM-ML algorithms-based decision-support system for electric vehicle selection. Environment, Development and Sustainability. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-025- 06476-x
  81. Shahab, S., Simic, V., Dutta, A. K., Pamučar, D., & Anjum, M. (2026). Evaluating blockchain-based waste management investments in smart cities using a multi-criteria decision support framework. Scientific Reports, 16, 3179. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-33085-5
  82. Xiang, Z., & Zhang, X. (2025). An integrated decision support system for supplier selection and performance evaluation in global supply chains. Applied Soft Computing, 180, 113325. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2025.113325
  83. Nila, B., & Roy, J. (2023). A new hybrid MCDM framework for third-party logistics provider selection under sustainability perspectives. Expert Systems with Applications, 234, 121009. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2023.121009
  84. Chinh, D. T., Quynh, P. H., Hien, N. T. T., Minh, V. Q., & Quang, V. M. (2025). Comparing Methodologies for Ranking Alternatives: A Case Study in Assessing Bank Financial Performance. Engineering, Technology & Applied Science Research, 15(6), 29173–29179. https://doi.org/10.48084/etasr.14024 https://doi.org/10.48084/etasr.14024
  85. Vatansever, K., & Bayraktar, T. (2025). Examination of Financial Performance of Manufacturing Sector Companies in the BIST Participation Sustainability Index by MEREC and COBRA Methods. Ekonomi Politika ve Finans Araştırmaları Dergisi, 10(Özel Sayı), 275-304. https://doi.org/10.30784/epfad.1677702
  86. Oğuz, A., & Satır, H. (2024). Analyzing profitability performance with the integrated MEREC-COBRA method: The case of BIST retail companies. Business and Economics Research Journal, 15(1), 33-50. https://doi.org/10.20409/berj.2024.433
  87. Kamruddin, S., KS, V. K., Kalvakolanu, S., Nalluri, V., & Chang, J. R. (2025). A Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Approach to Improve Criteria Ranking and Weighting: Integrating SITDE Weighting with PIV and RAM Techniques. Asian Journal of Interdisciplinary Research, 8(2), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.54392/ajir2521
  88. Van Dua, T. (2026). A Novel Approach for Criteria Weight Determination: A Case Study in Machine Ranking. Engineering, Technology & Applied Science Research, 16(1), 31333-31337. https://doi.org/10.48084/etasr.15778
  89. Işık, Ö., Shabir, M., & Moslem, S. (2024). A hybrid MCDM framework for assessing urban competitiveness: A case study of European cities. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 96, 102109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seps.2024.102109
  90. Ullah, Z., Amin, F., Kouki, M., Garalleh, H. A., & Al Agha, A. (2026). A novel Schweizer Sklar aggregation framework for fuzzy bipolar soft numbers in multi-criteria decision-making: application to deep learning model evaluation. Evolving Systems, 17(2), 31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12530-025-09791-w