The DOI matches its Crossref record; 24 of the 24 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Integrated Determination of Objective Criteria Weights in MCDM
Abstract
In multiple criteria evaluation, criteria weights are of great importance. In practice, subjective criteria weights determined by specialists/experts are commonly used. The types of elements of a decision matrix also play an important role in the evaluation of alternatives. The objective weights help to estimate the structure of data. The entropy method is widely used for determining the weights (significances) of criteria. A new method of the criterion impact loss, CILOS, is used for determining a relative impact loss experienced by the criterion of an alternative, when another criterion is chosen to be the best. The authors of the paper have combined the best features of the entropy method and the CILOS approach to obtain a new method – Integrated Determination of Objective CRIteria Weights, or (IDOCRIW).
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
A Mathematical Theory of Communication
Shannon, C. E. (1948) · Bell System Technical Journal · doi:10.1002/j.1538-7305.1948.tb00917.x · Cited by 48,949
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
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
Multi-criteria Decision Making Methods: A Comparative Study
Triantaphyllou, E. (2000) · Applied Optimization · doi:10.1007/978-1-4757-3157-6 · Cited by 2,394
Multiple Attribute Decision Making
Tzeng, G.-H., & Huang, J.-J. (2011) · Chapman & Hall/CRC eBooks · doi:10.1201/b11032 · Cited by 1,659
Keršulienė, V., Zavadskas, E. K., & Turskis, Z. (2010) · Journal of Business Economics and Management · doi:10.3846/jbem.2010.12 · Cited by 1,555
Self-citation(2011) · SpringerReference · doi:10.1007/springerreference_5233 · Cited by 1,362
Developing a fuzzy TOPSIS approach based on subjective weights and objective weights
Wang, T.-C., & Lee, H.-D. (2009) · Expert Systems with Applications · doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2008.11.035 · Cited by 967
STATE OF ART SURVEYS OF OVERVIEWS ON MCDM/MADM METHODS
Zavadskas, E. K., Turskis, Z., & Kildienė, S. (2014) · Technological and Economic Development of Economy · doi:10.3846/20294913.2014.892037 · Cited by 931
Self-citation
Cited by
Ervural, B., & Ayaz, H. I. (2023) · Engineering Failure Analysis · doi:10.1016/j.engfailanal.2023.107525 · Cited by 91
Metadata
- Authors
- Zavadskas, E. K., & Podvezko, V.
- Venue
- International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making
- Publisher
- World Scientific Pub Co Pte Lt
- Published
- 2016-03
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 02
- Pages
- 267-283
- ISSN
- 0219-6220 (ISSN-L)
- 1793-6845
- OpenAlex
- W2231191608
- Cited by
- 365
- References
- 24
- FWCI
- 19.34
- 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: Integrated Determination of Objective Criteria Weights in MCDM. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1142/s0219622016500036
- The paper
- Zavadskas, E. K., & Podvezko, V. (2016). Integrated Determination of Objective Criteria Weights in MCDM. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making. https://doi.org/10.1142/s0219622016500036
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.
