EDP Sciences logo
Submit your paper
Search
Menu
Home All issues Volume 12 (2025) Manufacturing Rev., 12 (2025) 16 References
Open Access
Issue
Manufacturing Rev.
Volume 12, 2025
Article Number 16
Number of page(s) 16
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/mfreview/2025014
Published online 18 July 2025
  1. M.H. Alamoudi, O.A. Bafail, BWM-RAPS approach for evaluating and ranking banking sector companies based on their financial indicators in the Saudi stock market, J. Risk Financial Manag. 15 (2022) 1–20 [Google Scholar]
  2. M. Mohammadi, J. Rezaei, Ratio product model: A rank-preserving normalization-agnostic multicriteria decision-making method, J. Multi-Crit. Decis. Anal. 30 (2023) 163–172 [Google Scholar]
  3. M. Nuriyev, Z-numbers based hybrid MCDM approach for energy resources ranking and selection, Int. J. Energy Econ. Policy 10 (2020) 22–30 [Google Scholar]
  4. D.T. Do, Assessing the impact of criterion weights on the ranking of the top ten universities in Vietnam, engineering, Technol. Appl. Sci. Res. 14 (2024) 14899–14903 [Google Scholar]
  5. E. Vassoney, A.M. Mochet, E. Desiderio, G. Negro, M.G. Pilloni, C. Comoglio, Comparing multi-criteria decision making methods for the assessment of flow release scenarios from small hydropower plants in the alpine area, Front. Environ[CE1]. Sci. 8 (2021) [Google Scholar]
  6. R.K. Dhurkari, MCDM METHODS: Practical difficulties and future directions for improvement, RAIRO-Oper. Res. 56 (2022) 2221–2233 [Google Scholar]
  7. M.A. Fattouh, A.S. Eisa, The Significance of weighting in multicriteria decision-making methods: a case study on robot selection, Eng. Res. J. Faculty Eng. Menoufia Univ. 46 (2023) 339–352 [Google Scholar]
  8. A.D.A. Mandil, M.M. Salih, Y.R. Muhsen, Opinion weight criteria method (OWCM): A new method for weighting criteria with zero inconsistency, IEEE Access 12 (2024) 5605–5616 [Google Scholar]
  9. E. Roszkowska, The extension of rank ordering criteria weighting methods in fuzzy environment, Oper. Res. decis. 2020 (2020) 91–114 [Google Scholar]
  10. S. Zakeri, P. Chatterjee, D. Konstantas, F. Ecer, A decision analysis model for material selection using simple ranking process, Sci. Rep. 13 (2023) [Google Scholar]
  11. C. Kao, Weight determination for consistently ranking alternatives in multiple criteria decision analysis, Appl. Math. Model. 34 (2010) 1779–1787 [Google Scholar]
  12. M. Soltanifa, A new interval for ranking alternatives in multi attribute decision making problems, J. Appl. Res. Ind. Eng. 11 (2024) 37–56 [Google Scholar]
  13. Y. Dorfeshan, R.T. Moghaddam, F. Jolai, S.M. Mousav, A new grey decision model-based reference point method for decision makers and criteria’s weight, and final ranking, J. Ind. Syst. Eng. 14 (2022) 284–297 [Google Scholar]
  14. M.A. Hatefi, An improved rank order centroid method (IROC) for criteria weight estimation: an application in the engine/vehicle selection problem, Informatica 34 (2023) 249–270 [Google Scholar]
  15. Y. Omari, D. Hamdadou, M.A. Mami, Assigning decision makers’ weights using topsis method in spatial multicriteria group decision support system, J. Posit. School Psychol. 6 (2022) 8602–8609 [Google Scholar]
  16. J.J Thakkar, Stepwise weight assessment ratio analysis (SWARA), in: Multi-Criteria Decision Making. Studies in Systems, Decision and Control, 336, (2021) [Google Scholar]
  17. D.D. Trung, H.X. Thinh, A multi-criteria decision-making in turning process using the MAIRCA, EAMR, MARCOS and TOPSIS methods: A comparative study, Adv. Produc. Eng. Manag. 16 (2021) 443–456 [Google Scholar]
  18. F. Ecer, D. Pamucar, A novel LOPCOW-DOBI multi-criteria sustainability performance assessment methodology: An application in developing country banking sector, Omega 112 (2022) [Google Scholar]
  19. M. Keshavarz-Ghorabaee, M. Amiri, E.K. Zavadskas, Z. Turskis, J. Antucheviciene, Determination of objective weights using a new method based on the removal effects of criteria (MEREC), Symmetry 13 (2021) [Google Scholar]
  20. Z. Gligoric, M. Gligoric, I. Miljanovic, S. Lutovac, A. Milutinovic, Assessing criteria weights by the symmetry point of criterion (Novel SPC Method)–application in the efciency evaluation of the mineral deposit multi-criteria partitioning algorithm, Comput. Model. Eng. Sci. 136 (2023) [Google Scholar]
  21. A.R. Paramanik, S. Sarkar, B. Sarkar, OSWMI: An objective-subjective weighted method for minimizing inconsistency in multi-criteria decision making, Comput&. Ind. Eng. 169 (2022) [Google Scholar]
  22. V. Podvezko, E.K. Zavadskas, A. Podviezko, An extension of the new objective weight assessment methods CILOS and IDOCRIW to fuzzy MCDM, Econ. Comput. Econ. Cybern. Stud. Res. 2020 (2020) 59–75 [Google Scholar]
  23. N.T.D. Linh, N.H. Son, D.X. Thao, Evaluating the impact of weighting methods on the stability of scores for alternatives in multicriteria decision-making problems, Eng. Technol&. Appl. Sci. Res. 15 (2025) 19998–20004 [Google Scholar]
  24. F. Cai, Z. Hu, B. Jiang, W. Ruan, S. Cai, H. Zou, Ecological health assessment with the combination weight method for the river reach after the retirement and renovation of small hydropower stations, Water 15 (2023) [Google Scholar]
  25. M. Danielson, L. Ekenberg, A robustness study of state-of-the-art surrogate weights for MCDM, Group DecisNegot 26 (2017) 677–691 [Google Scholar]
  26. D.D. Trung, N.X. Truong, H.X. Thinh, Combined PIPRECIA method and modified FUCA method for selection of lathe, J. Appl. Eng. Sci. 20 (2022) 1355–1365 [Google Scholar]
  27. S. Zakeri, D. Konstantas, P. Chatterjee, E.K. Zavadskas, Soft cluster-rectangle method for eliciting criteria weights in multicriteria decision-making, Sci. Rep. 15 (2025) [Google Scholar]
  28. H.–-J. Shyur, Combination weighting method using Z-numbers for multi-criteria decision-making, Appl. Soft. Comput. 174 (2025) [Google Scholar]
  29. H. Sulistiani, Setiawansyah, A.F.O. Pasaribu, P. Palupiningsih, K. Anwar, V.H. Saputra, New TOPSIS: modification of the TOPSIS method for objective determination of weighting, Int. J. Intell. Eng. Syst. 17 (2024) 991–1003 [Google Scholar]
  30. L.V. Cremades, A. Ponsich, Simple and objective determination of criteria weights for evaluating alternatives when using the analytic hierarchy process, IJAHP 16 (2024) 1–24 [Google Scholar]
  31. G.O. Odu, Weighting methods for multi-criteria decision making technique, J. Appl. Sci. Environ. Manag. 23 (2019) 1449–1457 [Google Scholar]
  32. S. Lakmayer, M. Danielson, Effcient weight ranking in multi-criteria decision support systems, Electronics 14 (2025) [Google Scholar]
  33. H.K. Alfares, S.O. Du®uaa, Simulation-based evaluation of criteria rank-weighting methods in multi-criteria decision-making, Int. J. Inf. Technol. Decis. Mak. 15 (2016) [Google Scholar]
  34. M. Qiyas, T. Madrar, S. Khan, S. Abdullah, T. Botmart, A. Jirawattanapaint, Decision support system based on fuzzy credibility Dombi aggregation operators and modified TOPSIS method, AIMS Math. 7 (2022) 19057–19082 [Google Scholar]
  35. N.T. Giang, H.X. Thinh, N.T. Giang, Comparing subjective weighting methods in multi-criteria decision-making: an application to electric bicycle ranking, engineering, Technol. Appl. Sci. Res. 15 (2025) 21963–21969 [Google Scholar]
  36. M. Alemi-Ardakani, A.S. Milani, S. Yannacopoulos, G. Shokouhi, On the effect of subjective, objective and combinative weighting in multiple criteria decision making: A case study on impact optimization of composites, Expert Syst. Appl. 46 (2016) 426–438 [Google Scholar]
  37. B. Nemeth, A. Molnar, S. Bozoki, K. Wijaya, A. Inotai, J.D. Campbell, Z. Kalo, Comparison of weighting methods used in multicriteria decision analysis frameworks in healthcare with focus on low- and middle-income countries, J. Comp. Effect. Res. 8 (2019) 195–204 [Google Scholar]
  38. T.L. Saaty, A scaling method for priorities inheirachical structures, J. Math. Psychol. 15 (1977) 234–281 [Google Scholar]
  39. A. Puška, M. Nedeljković, D. Pamučar, D. Božanić, V. Simić, Application of the new simple weight calculation (SIWEC) method in the case study in the sales channels of agricultural products, MethodsX 13 (2024) [Google Scholar]
  40. M. Nedeljković, Z. Papović, S. Krstić, Assessment of the weight of factors influencing food losses using fuzzy multi-criteria analysis, Econ. Agric. 71 (2024) 1313–1324 [Google Scholar]
  41. M. Nedeljkovic, S. Vujičić, Evaluation of sustainable agricultural tourism criteria, Climate changes and ecological sustainability in agriculture and food production in Serbia, the region and Southeastern Europe: proceedings 2025 (2025) 250–256 [Google Scholar]
  42. A. Puška, M. Nedeljković, D. Božanic, A. Štilić, Y.R. Muhsen, Evaluation of agricultural drones based on the compromise ranking from alternative solutions (CORASO) methodology, Eng. Rev. 2024 (2024) 77–90 [Google Scholar]
  43. A. Puška, D. Božanić, A. Štilić, M. Nedeljković, M. Khalilzadeh, Application of fuzzy-rough methodology to the selection of electric tractors for small farms in Semberija, J. Fuzzy Ext. Appl. (2025) [Google Scholar]
  44. T. Varshney, A.V. Waghmare, V.P. Singh, M. Ramu, N. Patnana, V.P. Meena, A.T. Azar, I.A. Hameed, Investigation of rank order centroid method for optimal generation control, Sci. Rep. 14 (2024) Art. no. 11267 [Google Scholar]
  45. H.X. Thinh, Multi-objective optimization of turning process by FUCA method, Strojníckyčasopis, J. Mech. Eng. 73 (2023) 55–66 [Google Scholar]
  46. D.D. Trung, Application of TOPSIS and PIV methods for multi-criteria decision making in hard turning process, J. Mach. Eng. 21 (2021) 57–71 [Google Scholar]
  47. D.D. Trung, N. Nhu-Tung, Applying COCOSO, MABAC, MAIRCA, EAMR, TOPSIS and weight determination methods for multi-criteria decision making in hole turning process, Strojníckyčasopis, J. Mech. Eng. 72 (2022) 15–40 [Google Scholar]
  48. B. Ahcène, A new method for determining the weights in multi-criteria decision making based on ordinal ranking of criteria and lagrange multiplier, Metall. Min. Ind. 5 (2017) 22–31 [Google Scholar]
  49. M. Bouhedja, S. Bouhedja, A. Benselhoub, Testing the suitability of vector normalization procedure in TOPSIS method: Application to wheel loader selection, Math. Model. 2 (2024) 52–62 [Google Scholar]
  50. T.V. Huy, N.Q. Quyet, V.H. Binh, T.M. Hoang, N.T.T. Tien, L.T. Anh, D.T. Nga, N.Q. Doan, P.H. Tu, D.D. Trung, Multi-criteria decision-making for electric bicycle selection, Adv. Eng. Lett. 1 (2022) 126–135 [Google Scholar]
  51. D.D. Trung, Application of TOPSIS and PIV methods for multi-criteria decision making in hard turning process, J. Mach. Eng. 21 (2021) 57–71 [Google Scholar]
  52. D.H. Tien, D.D. Trung, N.V. Thien, Comparison of multi-criteria decision making methods using the same data standardization method, Strojníckyčasopis, J. Mech. Eng. 72 (2022) 57–72 [Google Scholar]
  53. S. Mufazzal, S.M. Muzakkir, A new multi-criterion decision making (MCDM) method based on proximity indexed value for minimizing rank reversals, Comput&. Ind. Eng. 119 (2018) 427–438 [Google Scholar]
  54. A.S. Anvari, Root assessment method (RAM): A novel multi-criteria decision making method and its applications in sustainability challenges, J. Clean. Prod. 423 (2023) [Google Scholar]
  55. B. Kizielewicz, A. Baczkiewicz, Comparison of Fuzzy TOPSIS, Fuzzy VIKOR, Fuzzy WASPAS and Fuzzy MMOORA methods in the housing selection problem, Proc. Comput. Sci. 192 (2021) 4578–4591 [Google Scholar]
  56. P. Aazagreyir, P. Appiahene, O. Appiah, S. Boateng, Comparative analysis of fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making methods for quality of service-based web service selection, IAES Int. J. Artif. Intell. 13 (2024) 1408–1419 [Google Scholar]
  57. H.X. Thinh, T.V. Dua, Research on expanding the scope of application of the MARA method, EUREKA: Phys. Eng. 2024 (2024) 90–99 [Google Scholar]
  58. S. Bošković, L. Švadlenka, S. Jovčić, M. Dobrodolac, V. Simić, N. Bacanin, An alternative ranking order method accounting for two step normalization (AROMAN)—A case study of the electric vehicle selection problem, IEEE Access 11 (2023) 39496–39507 [Google Scholar]
  59. T. Van Dua, Application of the collaborative unbiased rank list integration method to select the materials, Appl. Eng. Lett. 7 (2022) 133–142 [Google Scholar]
  60. N.V. Thien, N.H. Son, Material selection for PMEDM process, Int. J. Mech. Eng. Robot. Res. 13 (2024) 315–324 [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.