Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 365

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 71 of the 71 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A comprehensive review of fuzzy multi criteria decision making methodologies for energy policy making

Open access
Kaya, İhsan, Çolak, Murat, Terzi, Fulya·2019·Energy Strategy Reviews

Abstract

Energy policy making is one of the most significant issues for countries and it can be evaluated by using multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) methods. The energy decision and policy-making problems include selecting among energy alternatives, evaluating energy supply technologies, determining energy policy and energy planning. There is a wide range of studies about energy decision-making problems in the literature and different types of energy alternatives are considered in these studies. The MCDM methods are used as effective tools in order to solve energy decision-making problems since they evaluate alternatives with different perspectives in terms of several conflicting criteria. In this context, the fuzzy set theory (FST) that expresses uncertainties in human opinions, can be successfully used together with the MCDM methods to get more sensitive, concrete and realistic results. This paper aims to present a comprehensive review and bring together existing literature and the most recent advances to lead researchers about the methodologies and applications of fuzzy MCDM in the energy field. For this aim, a large number of papers that use fuzzy MCDM methods to solve energy policy and decision making problems have been analyzed with respect to some characteristics such as types of fuzzy sets, year, journal, fuzzy MCDM method, country and document type. The results of this study indicate that fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), as an individual tool or by integrating with another MCDM method, is the most applied MCDM method and type-1 fuzzy sets are the most preferred type of fuzzy sets. Additionally, Turkey and China are countries which have the highest number of publications related to fuzzy MCDM methods in energy-related problems.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.esr.2019.03.003

Cites

71 of 71 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 71 references

Metadata

Authors
Kaya, İ., Çolak, M., & Terzi, F.
Venue
Energy Strategy Reviews
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-04
Volume
24
Pages
207-228
ISSN
2211-467X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2930900166
Cited by
365
References
71
FWCI
29.51
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

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: A comprehensive review of fuzzy multi criteria decision making methodologies for energy policy making. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.esr.2019.03.003
The paper
Kaya, İ., Çolak, M., & Terzi, F. (2019). A comprehensive review of fuzzy multi criteria decision making methodologies for energy policy making. Energy Strategy Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esr.2019.03.003

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.