The DOI matches its Crossref record; 30 of the 30 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Rank Ordering Criteria Weighting Methods – a Comparative Overview
Open accessAbstract
Multicriteria decision making (MCDM) refers to screening, prioritizing, ranking or selecting the alternatives based on human judgment from among a finite set of ` alternatives in terms of the multiple usually conflicting criteria.A very significant role in MCDM models plays the weights of criteria which usually provide the information about the relative importance of the considered criteria.Several different methods are developed to take criteria priorities into account.The aim of the paper is a comparative overview on several rank ordering weights methods which are considered to convert the ordinal ranking of a number of criteria into numerical weights.Using ranks to elicit weights by some formulas is more reliable than just directly assigning weights to criteria because usually decision makers are more confident about the ranks of some criteria than their weights, and they can agree on ranks more easily.The great advantage of those methods is the fact that they rely only on ordinal information about attribute importance.They can be used for instance in situations of time pressure, quality nature of criteria, lack of knowledge, imprecise, incomplete information or partial information, decision maker's limited attention and information processing capability.The equal weights, rank sum, rank exponent, rank reciprocal as well centroid weights technique are presented.These methods have been selected for their simplicity and effectiveness.
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
Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Tradeoffs.
Tsoukias, A., Keeney, R. L., & Raiffa, H. (1994) · The Journal of the Operational Research Society · doi:10.2307/2584151 · Cited by 8,370
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
European journal of operational research
(1990) · Technological Forecasting and Social Change · doi:10.1016/0040-1625(90)90023-o · Cited by 5,365
Determining objective weights in multiple criteria problems: The critic method
Diakoulaki, D., Mavrotas, G., & Papayannakis, L. (1995) · Computers & Operations Research · doi:10.1016/0305-0548(94)00059-h · Cited by 3,413
Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: An Integrated Approach
Belton, V., & Stewart, T. J. (2001) · CERN Document Server (European Organization for Nuclear Research) · Cited by 2,724
Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Tradeoffs.
Smith, A. F. M., Keeney, R. L., & Raiffa, H. (1977) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A (General) · doi:10.2307/2345300 · Cited by 2,305
Moutinho, L., & Curry, B. (1994) · ENLIGHTEN (Jurnal Bimbingan dan Konseling Islam) · Cited by 1,813
Organizational behavior and human decision processes
Armstrong, J. S. (1988) · International Journal of Forecasting · doi:10.1016/0169-2070(88)90125-2 · Cited by 1,753
SMARTS and SMARTER: Improved Simple Methods for Multiattribute Utility Measurement
Edwards, W., & Barron, F. H. (1994) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1006/obhd.1994.1087 · Cited by 1,117
How to Use Multiattribute Utility Measurement for Social Decisionmaking
Edwards, W. (1977) · IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics · doi:10.1109/tsmc.1977.4309720 · Cited by 1,033
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
Stakeholders prioritization of climate-smart agriculture interventions: Evaluation of a framework
Khatri-Chhetri, A., Pant, A., Aggarwal, P. K., Vasireddy, V. V., & Yadav, A. (2019) · Agricultural Systems · doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2019.03.002 · Cited by 146
The “value” of values-driven data in identifying Indigenous health and climate change priorities
Donatuto, J., Campbell, L., & Trousdale, W. (2020) · Climatic Change · doi:10.1007/s10584-019-02596-2 · Cited by 43
Metadata
- Authors
- Białymstoku, U. W., & Roszkowska, E.
- Venue
- Optimum. Studia Ekonomiczne
- Publisher
- University of Bialystok
- Published
- 2013
- Issue
- 5(65)
- Pages
- 14-33
- ISSN
- 1506-7637 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2006096615
- Cited by
- 358
- References
- 30
- FWCI
- 4.08
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
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: Rank Ordering Criteria Weighting Methods – a Comparative Overview. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.15290/ose.2013.05.65.02
- The paper
- Białymstoku, U. W., & Roszkowska, E. (2013). Rank Ordering Criteria Weighting Methods – a Comparative Overview. Optimum. Studia Ekonomiczne. https://doi.org/10.15290/ose.2013.05.65.02
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.