The DOI matches its Crossref record; 13 of the 13 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A subjective and objective integrated approach to determine attribute 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
The Analytic Hierarchy Process
SAATY, T. L., & KEARNS, K. P. (1985) · Analytical Planning · doi:10.1016/b978-0-08-032599-6.50008-8 · Cited by 15,357
A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures
Saaty, T. L. (1977) · Journal of Mathematical Psychology · doi:10.1016/0022-2496(77)90033-5 · Cited by 10,360
Multiple Attribute Decision Making
Hwang, C.-L., & Yoon, K. (1981) · Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-48318-9 · Cited by 8,526
Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and Applications
Chen, S.-J. J., Hwang, C. L., Beckmann, M. J., & Krelle, W. E. (1981) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 8,207
Optimization by the Analytic Hierarchy Process
Saaty, T. L. (1979) · doi:10.21236/ada214804 · Cited by 4,466
Linear Programming Techniques for Multidimensional Analysis of Preferences
Srinivasan, V., & Shocker, A. D. (1973) · Psychometrika · doi:10.1007/bf02291658 · Cited by 681
Group Decision Making under Multiple Criteria
Hwang, C.-L., & Lin, M.-J. (1987) · Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-61580-1 · Cited by 662
A comparison of two methods for determining the weights of belonging to fuzzy sets
Chu, A. T. W., Kalaba, R. E., & Spingarn, K. (1979) · Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications · doi:10.1007/bf00933438 · Cited by 446
Behavioral influences on weight judgments in multiattribute decision making
Weber, M., & Borcherding, K. (1993) · European Journal of Operational Research · doi:10.1016/0377-2217(93)90318-h · Cited by 393
An Experimental Comparison of Different Approaches to Determining Weights in Additive Utility Models
Schoemaker, P. J. H., & Waid, C. C. (1982) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.28.2.182 · Cited by 382
Cited by
Weighting methods for multi-criteria decision making technique
Odu, G. O. (2019) · Journal of Applied Sciences and Environmental Management · doi:10.4314/jasem.v23i8.7 · Cited by 536
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
Mardani, A., Zavadskas, E. K., Khalifah, Z., Zakuan, N., Jusoh, A., Nor, K. M., & Khoshnoudi, M. (2017) · Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.rser.2016.12.053 · Cited by 359
Ufa State Petroleum Technological University, U., & Mukhametzyanov, I. (2021) · Decision Making: Applications in Management and Engineering · doi:10.31181/dmame210402076i · Cited by 343
“The subsequent transformation by the Sum-method leads to different values of the intensities (probabilities) pij than for the natural data of the decision matrix.”
MethodInfluentialParamanik, A. R., Sarkar, S., & Sarkar, B. (2022) · Computers & Industrial Engineering · doi:10.1016/j.cie.2022.108138 · Cited by 128
Metadata
- Authors
- Ma, J., Fan, Z.-P., & Huang, L.-H.
- Venue
- European Journal of Operational Research
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 1999-01
- Volume
- 112
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 397-404
- ISSN
- 0377-2217 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2082319470
- Cited by
- 507
- References
- 13
- FWCI
- 3.52
- 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: A subjective and objective integrated approach to determine attribute weights. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s0377-2217(98)00141-6
- The paper
- Ma, J., Fan, Z.-P., & Huang, L.-H. (1999). A subjective and objective integrated approach to determine attribute weights. European Journal of Operational Research. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0377-2217(98)00141-6
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.
