Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,555

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

SELECTION OF RATIONAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION METHOD BY APPLYING NEW STEP‐WISE WEIGHT ASSESSMENT RATIO ANALYSIS (SWARA)

Open access
Keršulienė, Violeta, Zavadskas, Edmundas Kazimieras, Turskis, Zenonas·2010·Journal of Business Economics and Management

Abstract

The paper considers major principles of application of the multi‐attribute systems to solve legislative tasks. In order to assess dispute resolution methods from economic, social and other points of view, it is necessary to apply methods for assessing solutions according to multiple attributes. All known multi‐attribute methods cannot value the atribute weights as one weight of attribute is higher or lower significant than the other attribute. The new step‐wise weight assessment ratio analysis method (SWARA) allows including experts, lawyers or dispute parties opinion about significance ratio of the attributes in the process of rational decision determination. SWARA method could be applied in practical implementation of specialised decision support systems and alternative dispute resolution in virtual environment. Starting with principles and established approaches, a problem‐structuring methodology was developed which would condition the problem to allow a more thoughtful application of existing decision‐making analytic methodologies. Santrauka Darbe nagrinejami daugiakriterines analizes taikymo galimybes ir principai teisiniams uždaviniams spresti. Siekiant ekonominiu, socialiniu ar kitu aspektu ivertinti ginču sprendimo būdu alternatyvas, būtina taikyti metodus, ivertinančius šias alternatyvas apibūdinančius kriterijus. Tačiau visi žinomi daugiakriteriniai metodai nevertina, kiek rodikliai, apibūdinantys alternatyvas, yra vienas už kita svar‐besni ar ne tokie reikšmingi. Pasiūlytas naujas kriteriju svoriu nustatymo metodas, pagristas nuose‐kliu laipsnišku poriniu kriteriju santykines svarbos lyginimu (angl. Step‐Wise Weight Assessment Ratio Analysis ‐ SWARA), leidžia priimant sprendimus ivertinti ekspertu, advokatu ar ginčo šaliu nuomo‐ne apie rodikliu reikšmingumu skirtumus. SWARA metodas gali būti taikomas kuriant specializuotas sprendimu paramos sistemas, skirtas racionaliam ginču sprendimo būdui parinkti ar ginčams spresti alternatyviais būdais virtualioje aplinkoje. Darbe trumpai apžvelgti ginču sprendimo būdai, sukurtas ju vertinimo ir lyginimo metodas, kuris sekmingai galetu būti taikomas ir kitiems uždaviniams spresti.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3846/jbem.2010.12

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 2 references

Cited by

See all 1,555

Metadata

Authors
Keršulienė, V., Zavadskas, E. K., & Turskis, Z.
Venue
Journal of Business Economics and Management
Published
2010-06-30
Volume
11
Issue
2
Pages
243-258
ISSN
  • 1611-1699 (ISSN-L)
  • 2029-4433
OpenAlex
W2056258586
Cited by
1,555
References
2
FWCI
11.77
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

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: SELECTION OF RATIONAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION METHOD BY APPLYING NEW STEP‐WISE WEIGHT ASSESSMENT RATIO ANALYSIS (SWARA). https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3846/jbem.2010.12
The paper
Keršulienė, V., Zavadskas, E. K., & Turskis, Z. (2010). SELECTION OF RATIONAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION METHOD BY APPLYING NEW STEP‐WISE WEIGHT ASSESSMENT RATIO ANALYSIS (SWARA). Journal of Business Economics and Management. https://doi.org/10.3846/jbem.2010.12

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.