The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Developing a fuzzy TOPSIS approach based on subjective weights and objective weights
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
A Mathematical Theory of Communication
Shannon, C. E. (1948) · Bell System Technical Journal · doi:10.1002/j.1538-7305.1948.tb01338.x · Cited by 88,486
Cited by
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
Measuring corporate environmental performance: a methodology for sustainable development
Escrig‐Olmedo, E., Muñoz‐Torres, M. J., Fernández‐Izquierdo, M. Á., & Rivera‐Lirio, J. M. (2017) · Business Strategy and the Environment · doi:10.1002/bse.1904 · Cited by 159
Multicriteria Based Decision Making of DevOps Data Quality Assessment Challenges Using Fuzzy TOPSIS
Rafi, S., Yu, W., Akbar, M. A., Alsanad, A., & Gumaei, A. (2020) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2020.2976803 · Cited by 37
Metadata
- Authors
- Wang, T.-C., & Lee, H.-D.
- Venue
- Expert Systems with Applications
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2009-07
- Volume
- 36
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 8980-8985
- ISSN
- 0957-4174 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2012468319
- Cited by
- 967
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 21.01
- 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: Developing a fuzzy TOPSIS approach based on subjective weights and objective weights. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.eswa.2008.11.035
- The paper
- Wang, T.-C., & Lee, H.-D. (2009). Developing a fuzzy TOPSIS approach based on subjective weights and objective weights. Expert Systems with Applications. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2008.11.035
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.
