Cited by 59Multi-Criteria Decision MakingFuzzy and Soft Set TheoryOptimization and Mathematical Programming

A Fermatean fuzzy MCDM method for selection and ranking Problems: Case studies

Open access
Aydoğan, Hakan, Ozkir, Vildan·2024·Expert Systems with Applications

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.eswa.2023.121628

Cites

49 of 49 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 50 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Aydoğan, H., & Ozkir, V.
Affiliations
Bartin University (TR)
Corresponding author
Aydoğan, Hakan
Venue
Expert Systems with Applications
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2024-03
Volume
237
Pages
121628
ISSN
0957-4174 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4386852124
Cited by
59
References
50
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 26 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 1
FWCI
10.88
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Expert Systems with Applications (publishedVersion)
  • SSRN Electronic Journal (acceptedVersion)
  • Yildiz Technical University - AVESIS (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Multi-Criteria Decision Making
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Fuzzy and Soft Set Theory
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Control and Systems Engineering › Optimization and Mathematical Programming
Keywords
Fermatean fuzzy sets, multi-criteria decision making, intuitionistic fuzzy sets, triangular fuzzy numbers, university rankings, facility location, beverage industry, decision making under uncertainty, criteria weighting

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