The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Sustainable supplier selection in healthcare industries using a new MCDM method: Measurement of alternatives and ranking according to COmpromise solution (MARCOS)
Abstract
Abstract Multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) methods are very useful tools for daily decision-making in different fields. In addition, determining an acceptable solution with respect to different factors is certainly a very demanding and difficult task. In this paper, a new Measurement of Alternatives and Ranking according to COmpromise Solution (MARCOS) method for a sustainable supplier selection in the healthcare industry (in a polyclinic) in Bosnia and Herzegovina is developed. The advantages of the developed method are: the consideration of an anti-ideal and ideal solution at the very beginning of the formation of an initial matrix, closer determination of utility degree in relation to both solutions, the proposal of a new way to determine utility functions and their aggregation, the possibility to consider a large set of criteria and alternatives while maintaining the stability of the method. Supplier selection is very important for organizations in the medical industry. Sustainability in the supplier selection process in the medical industry is a strategically important issue, and poorly implemented in the private medical sector. Therefore, the example explains how to use the MARCOS method to select sustainable suppliers in the private medical sector. A case study of a sustainable supplier selection for the healthcare industry (a polyclinic) includes ranking of eight alternatives with regard to 21 criteria for all aspects of sustainability. The results and verification of the new method are carried out throughout a comprehensive sensitivity analysis. 21 scenarios with changes in the weight values of criteria were established, the measurement scale from 1 to 9 was changed to 1–5, a comparison with six other MCDM methods was performed, and it was verified in dynamic conditions which implied a change of the elements of the initial decision-making matrix. All phases of the sensitivity analysis showed the validity of MARCOS method. The obtained results and all scenarios in sensitivity analysis show that A2 remains the best alternative.
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
Cites
Malik, M. M., Abdallah, S., & Hussain, M. (2016) · Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.rser.2015.05.004 · Cited by 94
Cited by
Bongo, M. F., & Seva, R. R. (2023) · Aerospace · doi:10.3390/aerospace10030252 · Cited by 28
Aleksić, A., Tadić, D., Komatina, N., & Nestić, S. (2025) · Mathematics · doi:10.3390/math13132216 · Cited by 11
Hosseini Dehshiri, S. J., & Amiri, M. (2025) · Energy Strategy Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.esr.2025.101761 · Cited by 10
Yalçın, G. C., Kara, K., Özekenci, E. K., Simic, V., & Pamucar, D. (2025) · Applied Soft Computing · doi:10.1016/j.asoc.2025.113934 · Cited by 6
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Stević, Ž., Pamučar, D., Puška, A., & Chatterjee, P.
- Venue
- Computers & Industrial Engineering
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2020-02
- Volume
- 140
- Pages
- 106231
- ISSN
- 0360-8352 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2996521213
- Cited by
- 1,419
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 77.09
- Type
- journal article
- 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: Sustainable supplier selection in healthcare industries using a new MCDM method: Measurement of alternatives and ranking according to COmpromise solution (MARCOS). https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.cie.2019.106231
- The paper
- Stević, Ž., Pamučar, D., Puška, A., & Chatterjee, P. (2020). Sustainable supplier selection in healthcare industries using a new MCDM method: Measurement of alternatives and ranking according to COmpromise solution (MARCOS). Computers & Industrial Engineering. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2019.106231
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.