Cited by 26Quality and Supply ManagementSustainable Supply Chain ManagementMulti-Criteria Decision Making

Using the pairwise comparison method to assess competitive priorities within a supply chain

Saarijärvi, Hannu, Kuusela, Hannu, Spence, Mark T.·2012·Industrial Marketing Management

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.indmarman.2011.06.031

Cites

40 of 40 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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Saarijärvi, H., Kuusela, H., & Spence, M. T.
Affiliations
  • Tampere University (FI)
  • Bond University (AU)
Corresponding author
Saarijärvi, Hannu
Venue
Industrial Marketing Management
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2012-05
Volume
41
Issue
4
Pages
631-638
ISSN
0019-8501 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2058451275
Cited by
26
References
40
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 4 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 1
FWCI
1.84
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Industrial Marketing Management (publishedVersion)
  • e-publications@bond (Bond University) (submittedVersion)
  • Bond University Research Portal (Bond University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management Information Systems › Quality and Supply Management
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Sustainable Supply Chain Management
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Multi-Criteria Decision Making
Keywords
supply chain management, competitive priorities, pairwise comparison, supply chain strategy, strategic consistency, value creation, competitive advantage

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