KaydedilenlerDerginizi ekleyin

Dergiler / Journal of Business Economics and Finance / 2024 / Volume: 13 Issue: 2

MULTI-CRITERIA DECISION-MAKING METHODS (MCDM): A BIBLIOMETRIC ANALYSIS (1974-2024)

Neylan Kaya(AKDENIZ UNIVERSITY)0000-0003-2645-3246
Sayfa
—
Yayın Tarihi
2024-12-31
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

Moreover, it may serve as a guide for researchers in terms of documenting the common tendencies in the field of MCDM

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Purpose- Multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) is considered a complex decision-making (DM) tool that integrates both quantitative and qualitative factors.In recent years, various MCDM techniques and approaches have been proposed to select the best possible alternative.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:The overall aim of this study was to identify the tendencies and trends of the discipline over the past 50 years by conducting a bibliometric analysis of 10,387 studies published between 1974 and 2024 in the realm of multi-criteria decision-making methods (MCDM).
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Moreover, it may serve as a guide for researchers in terms of documenting the common tendencies in the field of MCDM
🔬Tür:Research Article
📍Kapsam:2024 Verileri
⚙️Değişkenler:Decison · decision making · multi-criteria decision making

Abstract

Purpose- Multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) is considered a complex decision-making (DM) tool that integrates both quantitative and qualitative factors.In recent years, various MCDM techniques and approaches have been proposed to select the best possible alternative. The overall aim of this study was to identify the tendencies and trends of the discipline over the past 50 years by conducting a bibliometric analysis of 10,387 studies published between 1974 and 2024 in the realm of multi-criteria decision-making methods (MCDM). Methodology- In this regard, the Web of Science Core Collection database was utilized to retrieve articles related to “Multiple criteria decision-making”, from which bibliometric data were extracted and analyzed. These studies were analyzed within the context of the number of publications by year, types of publications, language of publications, citation analysis, cooperation among countries, common citation networks and concept-topic orientations Findings- The analysis unveiled a rapid increase in the number of publications after 2012, with studies predominantly taking the form of articles and being published in English. Besides, engineering emerged as the field with the highest number of publications, with the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) and the Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) being the most frequently used concepts. Zavadskas was identified as the author with the most publications and most cited on the subject. The journal with the highest number of citations was European Journal of Operational Research. Furthermore, the USA and China play a pivotal role in cooperation between countries. Conclusion- This study is expected to make a valuable contribution to the relevant field as a determinant of some of the most effective researches, including influential journals, articles and authors in MCDM. Moreover, it may serve as a guide for researchers in terms of documenting the common tendencies in the field of MCDM

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

Kaya, N. (2024). MULTI-CRITERIA DECISION-MAKING METHODS (MCDM): A BIBLIOMETRIC ANALYSIS (1974-2024). Journal of Business Economics and Finance, Volume: 13 Issue: 2. https://doi.org/10.17261/Pressacademia.2024.1940

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (58)

  1. Adunlin, G., Diaby, V., Xiao, H. (2014).Application of multicriteria decision analysis in health care:a systematic review and bibliometric analysis. Health Expectations, 18(6), 1894-1995
  2. Bagheri, M., Shojaei, P., Khorami, M.T. (2018). A comparative survey of the condition of tourism infrastructure in Iranian provinces using VIKOR and TOPSIS, Decision Science Letters, 7(1), 87–102.http://dx.doi.org/10.5267/j.dsl.2017.4.001
  3. Bakulina, M. P. (2008). Application of the Zipf law to text compression, Journal of Applied and Industrial Mathematics, 2(4), 477-483.
  4. Bellman, R. E., Zadeh, L. A. (1970). Decision-making in a fuzzy environment, Management Science, 17(4), 141-164. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.17.4.B141
  5. Belton, V., Stewart, T. J. (2002). Multiple criteria decision analysis - An integrated approach, Boston, Kluwer.
  6. Borgman, C. L., Furner, J. (2002). Scholarly communication and bibliometrics. Annual Review of Information and Technology, 36(1), 2-72. https://asistdl.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/aris.1440360102
  7. Chen, C. B., Klein, C. M. (1997). An efficient approach to solving fuzzy MADM problems, Fuzzy Sets and Systems,88(1), 51-67. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-0114(96)00048-6
  8. Chen, C. T., Huang, S. F., Hung, W. Z. (2018). Linguistic VIKOR method for project evaluation of ambient intelligence product, Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Humanized Computing, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12652-018-0889-x
  9. Chen, Y., Jin, Q., Fang, H., Lei, H., Hu, J., Wu, Y., Chen, J., Wang, C., Wan, Y. (2019). Analytic network process: Academic insights and perspectives analysis, Journal of Cleaner Production, 235, 1276-1294.
  10. Cowton, Christopher J. (1998). The use of secondary data in business ethics research, Journal of Business Ethics, 17 (4), 423-434. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005730825103
  11. De Bellis, N. (2009). Bibliometrics and citation analysis, Lanham, Scarecrow Press Inc.
  12. Diodato, V. (2012). Dictionary of bibliometrics, Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, Newyork, The Haworth Press.
  13. Dong, J., Li, R., Huang, H. (2018). Performance Evaluation of Residential Demand Response Based on a Modified Fuzzy VIKOR and Scalable Computing Method, Energies, 11(5), 1097. https://doi.org/10.3390/en11051097
  14. Duan, R., Hu, L., Lin, Y. (2017). Fault diagnosis For complex systems based on dynamic evidential network and multi-attribute decision making with interval numbers, Eksploatacja i Niezawodnosc – Maintenance and Reliability, 19 (4), 580–589. http://dx.doi.org/10.17531/
  15. Francik, S., Pedryc, N., Knapczyk, A., Wojcik, A., Francik, R., Lapczynska-Kordon, B. (2017). Bibliometric analysis of multiple criteria decision making in agriculture, Technical Sciences, 20(1),17-30. http://dx.doi.org/10.31648/ts.2906
  16. Gao, Z., Liang, R., Xuan, T. (2016). VIKOR Method for Ranking Concrete Bridge Repair Projects with Target-Based Criteria, Results in Engineering, 3, 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rineng.2019.100018
  17. Giorgettia, A., Cavallinib, C., Arcidiacono, G., Citti, P. (2017). A Mixed C-VIKOR Fuzzy Approach for Material Selection during Design Phase: A Case Study in Valve Seats for High Performance Engine, International Journal of Applied Engineering Research,12(12), 3117-3129.
  18. Gürsakal, S. (2015).Karar Verme, Çok Kriterli Karar Verme Yöntemleri, 1. Baskı, (Ed: M. Aytaç ve N. Gürsakal), Dora Yayıncılık, 243-272, Bursa.
  19. Ishola, A. (2017). Advances safety methodology for risk management of petroleum refinery operations, Doctoral Thesis, Liverpool John Moores University, Doctor of Philosophy, UK.
  20. Işığıçok, E. (2015). Karar Verme, Mustafa Aytaç (Ed) ve Necmi Gürsakal (Ed), Dora Yayıncılık, 1-32, Bursa.
  21. Jackson, M. (2012). A Bibliometric analysis of gren building literatüre, Doctoral Dissertation, Faculty of the School of Business and Technology Management, Northcentral University, Presscott Valley, Arizona.
  22. Jalilibala, Z., Bozorgi-Amirib, A., Khosravi, R. (2018). A hybrid lexicographic and VIKOR approach for prioritizing construction projects by considering sustainable development criteria, Journal of Project Management, 3, 131–142. http://dx.doi.org/10.5267/j.jpm.2018.3.001
  23. Kiani, B., Liang, R. Y., Gross, J. (2018). Material selection for repair of structural concrete using VIKOR method, Case Studies in Construction Materials, 8, 489–497. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2018.03.008
  24. Kodikara, P. N. (2008). Multi-Objective Optimal Operation of Urban Water Supply Systems, PhD Thesis, Victoria University, Australia.
  25. Lee, H. C., Chang, C. T. (2018). Comparative analysis of MCDM methods for ranking renewable energy sources in Taiwan, Renewable ans Sustainable Energy Reviews, 92, 883-896. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.05.007
  26. Lee, A. H. I., Kang, H. Y., Liou,Y. J. (2017). A Hybrid Multiple-Criteria Decision-Making Approach for Photovoltaic Solar Plant Location Selection, Sustainability, 9(2), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9020184
  27. Lupo, T. (2016). A Fuzzy Framework to evaluate service quality in the healthcare industry: An emprical case of public hospital service evaluation in Sicily, Applied Soft Computing, 40, 468-478. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2015.12.010
  28. 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, 4126-4148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2015.01.003
  29. Marttunen, M., Lienart, J., Belton, V. (2017). Structuring problems for Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis in Practice: A Literature Review of Method Combinations, European Journal of Operational Research, 263(1), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2017.04.041
  30. McCahon, C. S., Hwang, C. L., & Tillman, F. A. (1983). A multiple attribute evaluation of Bayesian availability estimators. IEEE transactions on reliability, 32(5), 496-503.
  31. Merigo, J. M., Yang, J. B. (2017). A bibliometric analysis of operations research and management science, Omega, 27(1), 71-100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2016.12.004
  32. Moed, H. F. (2005). Citation Analysis in Research Evaluation, Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
  33. Piwowarski, M. (2009). Wielokryterialna analiza decyzyjna w systemach GIS, Polskie Stowarzyszenie Zarządzania Wiedzą, Seria: Studia i Materiały, 18, 123–134.
  34. Prakash, C., Barua, M.K. (2016). A Combined MCDM approach for evaluation and selection of third-party reverse logistics partner for Indian electronics industry, Sustainable Production and Consumption, 7, 66-78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2016.04.001
  35. Predrycz, W., Ekel, P., Parreiras, R. (2010). Fuzzy multicriteria decision-making:Models, Methods and Applications, John Wiley, Newyork.
  36. Ranjan, R., Chatterjee, P., Chakraborty, S. (2016). Performance evaluation of Indian Railway zones using DEMATEL and VIKOR methods, Benchmarking an International Journal, 23(1), 78-95. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-09-2014-0088
  37. Ren, P., Xu, Z., Gou, X. (2016). Pythagorean fuzzy TODIM approach to multi-criteria decision making, Applied Soft Computing, 42, 246-259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2015.12.020
  38. Saaty, T. L. (1977). A Scaling Method for Priorities in Hierarchical Structures, Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 15(3), 234-281. https://doi.org/10.1016/00222496(77)90033-5
  39. Sarkis, J. (2003). A strategic decision making framework for green supply chain management, Journal of Cleaner Production, 11(4), 397-409. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0959-6526(02)00062-8
  40. Skinner, J. K. (2015). Bibliometric and social network analysis of doctoral research:Research trends in distance learning, The University of New Mexico, Doctor of Philosophy, Organization Information and Learning Sciences, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
  41. Singh, S., Olugu, E.U., Musa, S.N., Mahat, A.B., Wong, K. Y. (2016). Strategy selection for sustainable manufacturing with integrated AHP-VIKOR method under interval-valued fuzzy environment, The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology,84(1-4), 547-563. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-015-7553-9
  42. Sobczyk, E. J., Wota, A., Krezolek, S. (2011). Zastosowanie matematycznych metod wielokryterialnych do wyboru optymalnego wariantu źródła pozyskania węgla kamiennego, Gospodarka Surowcami Mineralnymi/Mineral Resources Management, 27, 51–68.
  43. Sofiyabadi, J., Kolahi, B., Valmohammadi, C. (2016). Key performance indicators measurement in service business: a fuzzy VIKOR approach,27(9-10), 1028-1042. https://doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2015.1059272
  44. Trzaskalik, T. (2014a). Wielokryterialne wspomaganie decyzji, Metody i zastosowania, PWE, Warszawa.
  45. Trzaskalik, T. (2014b). Wielokryterialne wspomaganie decyzji,Przegląd metod i zastosowań, Zeszyty Naukowe Politechniki Śląskiej. Seria: Organizacja i Zarządzanie, 74, 239–263.
  46. VOSviewer (version 1.6.17, February 19, 2024). Centre for Science and Technology Studies, Leiden University, The Netherlands. https://www.vosviewer.com
  47. Wanga, L., Zhanga, H., Wanga, J., Li, L. (2017). Picture fuzzy normalized projection-based VIKOR method for the risk evaluation of construction Project, Applied Soft Computing, 64, 216-226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2017.12.014
  48. Xiong, L., Teng, C. L., Zhu, B. W., Tzeng, G. H., Huang, S. L. (2017). Using the D-DANP-mV Model to Explore the Continuous System Improvement Strategy for Sustainable Development of Creative Communities, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 14(11):130. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph14111309
  49. Yager, R. R. (2004). Modeling Prioritized Multicriteria Decision Making, IEEE Transactions on systems, Man, and Cybernetics,34(6), 2396-2404.
  50. Yager, R. R. (2018). Categorization in multi-criteria decision making, Information Sciences, 460-461, 416-423. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2017.08.011
  51. Yazdani, M., Zolfani, S. H., Zavadskas, E. K. (2016). New integration of MCDM methods and QFD in the selection of green suppliers. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 17(6), 1097–1113. https://doi.org/10.3846/16111699.2016.1165282
  52. Yu, Q., Hou, F. (2016). An approach for green supplier selection in the automobile manufacturing industry, Kybernetes, 45(4), 571-588. https://doi.org/10.1108/K-01-2015-0034
  53. Yu, D., Xu, Z., Wang, W. (2018). Bibliometric analysis of fuzzy theory research in China: A 30-year perspective, Knowledge-Based Systems, 141, 188-199. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2017.11.018
  54. Zadeh, L. A. (1965). Fuzzy sets. Information and Control, 8 (3), 338-353. https://doi.org/10.1016/S00199958(65)90241-X
  55. Zavadskas, E. K., Turskis, Z. (2011). Multiple criteria decision making (MCDM) methods in economics: an overview. Technological and Economic Development Economy, 17(2), 397-427. https://doi.org/10.3846/20294913.2011.593291
  56. Zyoud, S. H., Fuchs-Hanusch, D. (2017). A bibliometric-based survey on AHP and TOPSIS techniques. Expert Systems with Applications,78, 158-181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2017.02.016
  57. Zopounidis, C., Doumpos, M. (2017). Multicriteria decision making: Applications in Management and Engineering, Springer, Heidelberg.
  58. Adunlin, G., Diaby, V., Xiao, H. (2014).Application of multicriteria decision analysis in health care:a systematic review and bibliometric analysis. Health Expectations, 18(6), 1894-1995