The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Multi-criteria Decision Making Methods: A Comparative Study
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
A review on simulation-based optimization methods applied to building performance analysis
Nguyen, A.-T., Reiter, S., & Rigo, P. (2014) · Applied Energy · doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2013.08.061 · Cited by 1,379
STATE OF ART SURVEYS OF OVERVIEWS ON MCDM/MADM METHODS
Zavadskas, E. K., Turskis, Z., & Kildienė, S. (2014) · Technological and Economic Development of Economy · doi:10.3846/20294913.2014.892037 · Cited by 931
Multi-criteria decision-making for flood risk management: A survey of the current state of the art
de Brito, M. M., & Evers, M. (2016) · Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences · doi:10.5194/nhess-16-1019-2016 · Cited by 435
Integrated Determination of Objective Criteria Weights in MCDM
Zavadskas, E. K., & Podvezko, V. (2016) · International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making · doi:10.1142/s0219622016500036 · Cited by 365
Ufa State Petroleum Technological University, U., & Mukhametzyanov, I. (2021) · Decision Making: Applications in Management and Engineering · doi:10.31181/dmame210402076i · Cited by 343
Metadata
- Authors
- Triantaphyllou, E.
- Venue
- Applied Optimization
- Publisher
- Springer US
- Published
- 2000
- ISSN
- 1384-6485 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1583981513
- Cited by
- 2,394
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 7.75
- Type
- book
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Multi-criteria Decision Making Methods: A Comparative Study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1007/978-1-4757-3157-6
- The paper
- Triantaphyllou, E. (2000). Multi-criteria Decision Making Methods: A Comparative Study. Applied Optimization. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-3157-6
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
