A Comprehensive Bibliometric Analysis of Objective Weighting Methods in Multi-Criterion Decision-Making

Emre Kadir Özekenci; Kübra Topcuoglu Onat; Dragan Pamucar

doi:10.31181/msa31202645

Authors

Emre Kadir Özekenci Department of International Trade and Logistics, Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, Cag University, Mersin, Türkiye Author https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6669-0006
Kübra Topcuoglu Onat Department of International Trade and Logistics, Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, Cag University, Mersin, Türkiye Author https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8702-9954
Dragan Pamucar 1) Department of Applied Mathematical Science, College of Science and Technology, Korea University, Sejong, Republic of Korea; 2) Industrial Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering and Natural Sciences, İstinye University, İstanbul, Türkiye; 3) School of Engineering and Technology, Sunway University, Selangor, Malaysia Author https://orcid.org/0009-0001-9876-0328

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.31181/msa31202645

Keywords:

Multi-Criteria Decision Making, Objective Weighting Methods, Web of Science, Bibliometrics, Operations Research and Management Science

Abstract

Objective weighting methods have gained significant importance in the field of multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) due to their ability to determine criterion importance based on data-driven characteristics, thereby minimizing subjective bias. This study aims to examine the evolution, intellectual structure, and global research trends of objective weighting methods by conducting a comprehensive bibliometric analysis of 23,684 publications in the Web of Science (WoS) database from 1990 to 2025. The findings show significant and accelerating growth in scientific output, particularly after 2017, along with a rapid expansion of research interest in this area. Keyword analysis identified the Entropy method as the most dominant and frequently used approach, with 1,712 occurrences, significantly outperforming other methods. Co-authorship analysis reveals that China leads in both publication output (8,711 documents) and citation impact (127,032 citations), while the United States demonstrates the highest level of international connectivity, occupying a central position in global collaboration networks. The results demonstrate a strong correlation between objective weighting studies and sustainability-focused topics, particularly Sustainable Development Goal 13 (Climate Action), followed by Sustainable Development Goals 3 and 11. Overall, this study provides a structured and comprehensive overview of the global research landscape of objective weighting methods in the field of MCDM, offering valuable insights for future research directions and methodological advancements.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Pala, O. (2023). A new objective weighting method based on robustness of ranking with standard deviation and correlation: The ROCOSD method. Information Sciences, 636, 118930. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2023.04.009.

Gunantara, N. (2018). A review of multi-objective optimization: Methods and its applications. Cogent Engineering, 5(1), 1502242. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311916.2018.1502242.

Odu, G. O. (2019). Weighting methods for multi-criteria decision-making technique. Journal of Applied Sciences and Environmental Management, 23(8), 1449-1457. https://doi.org/10.4314/jasem. v23i8.7.

Van Dua, T., Van Duc, D., Bao, N. C., & Trung, D. D. (2024). Integration of objective weighting methods for criteria and MCDM methods: application in material selection. EUREKA: Physics and Engineering, (2), 131-148. https://doi.org/10.21303/2461-4262.2024.003171.

Peng, X., & Garg, H. (2022). Intuitionistic fuzzy soft decision-making method based on CoCoSo and CRITIC for CCN cache placement strategy selection. Artificial Intelligence Review, 55(2), 1567-1604. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10462-021-09995-x.

Taheriyoun, M., Karamouz, M., & Baghvand, A. (2010). Development of an entropy-based fuzzy eutrophication index for reservoir water quality evaluation. Iranian Journal of Environmental Health Science & Engineering, 7(1), 1-14.

Kumar, R., Bilga, P. S., & Singh, S. (2017). Multi objective optimization using different methods of assigning weights to energy consumption responses, surface roughness and material removal rate during rough turning operation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 164, 45-57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.06.077.

Diakoulaki, D., Mavrotas, G., & Papayannakis, L. (1995). Determining objective weights in multiple criteria problems: The critic method. Computers & Operations Research, 22(7), 763-770. https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-0548(94)00059-H.

Mishra, A. R., Rani, P., & Pandey, K. (2022). Fermatean fuzzy CRITIC-EDAS approach for the selection of sustainable third-party reverse logistics providers using improved generalized score function. Journal of Ambient Intelligence and Humanized Computing, 13(1), 295-311. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12652-021-02902-w.

Keshavarz-Ghorabaee, M., Amiri, M., Zavadskas, E. K., Turskis, Z., & Antucheviciene, J. (2021). Determination of objective weights using a new method based on the removal effects of criteria (MEREC). Symmetry, 13(4), 525. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym13040525.

Goswami, S. S., Mohanty, S. K., & Behera, D. K. (2022). Selection of a green renewable energy source in India with the help of MEREC integrated PIV MCDM tool. Materials today: proceedings, 52, 1153-1160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2021.11.019.

Ecer, F., & Pamucar, D. (2022). A novel LOPCOW‐DOBI multi‐criteria sustainability performance assessment methodology: An application in developing country banking sector. Omega, 112, 102690. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2022.102690.

Sharma, P., Nila, B., Pamucar, D., & Roy, J. (2025). Integrating LOPCOW-DOBI method and possibilistic programming for two-stage decision making in resilient food supply chain network. Journal of Industrial Information Integration, 100847. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jii.2025.100847.

Zavadskas, E. K., & Podvezko, V. (2016). Integrated determination of objective criteria weights in MCDM. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making, 15(02), 267-283. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219622016500036.

Ayan, B., Abacıoğlu, S., & Basilio, M. P. (2023). A comprehensive review of the novel weighting methods for multi-criteria decision-making. Information, 14(5), 285. https://doi.org/10.3390/info14050285.

Alao, M. A., Popoola, O. M., & Ayodele, T. R. (2021). Selection of waste-to-energy technology for distributed generation using IDOCRIW-Weighted TOPSIS method: A case study of the City of Johannesburg, South Africa. Renewable Energy, 178, 162-183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2021.06.031.

Zaidan, B. B., Zaidan, A. A., Karim, H. A., & Ahmad, N. N. (2017). A new approach based on multi-dimensional evaluation and benchmarking for data hiding techniques. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making, 23(02), 1017-1058. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219622017500183.

Baydaş, M., Elma, O. E., & Stević, Ž. (2024). Proposal of an innovative MCDA evaluation methodology: knowledge discovery through rank reversal, standard deviation, and relationship with stock return. Financial Innovation, 10(1), 4. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40854-023-00526-x.

Gligorić, M., Gligorić, Z., Lutovac, S., Negovanović, M., & Langović, Z. (2022). Novel hybrid MPSI–MARA decision-making model for support system selection in an underground mine. Systems, 10(6), 248. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems10060248.

Diaby, V., Campbell, K., & Goeree, R. (2013). Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) in health care: A bibliometric analysis. Operations Research for Health Care, 2(1-2), 20-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orhc.2013.03.001.

Morkūnaitė, Ž., Kalibatas, D., & Kalibatienė, D. (2019). A bibliometric data analysis of multi-criteria decision-making methods in heritage buildings. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 25(2), 76-99. https://doi.org/10.3846/jcem.2019.8315.

Costa, I. P. D. A., Basílio, M. P., Maêda, S. M. D. N., Rodrigues, M. V. G., Moreira, M. Â. L., Gomes, C. F. S., & dos Santos, M. (2021). Bibliometric studies on multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) applied in personnel selection. In Modern Management based on Big Data II and Machine Learning and Intelligent Systems III (pp. 119-125). IOS Press. https://doi.org/10.3233/FAIA210239.

Arriola, E. R., Ubando, A. T., & Chen, W. H. (2022). A bibliometric review on the application of fuzzy optimization to sustainable energy technologies. International Journal of Energy Research, 46(1), 6-27. https://doi.org/10.1002/er.5729.

Costa, I. P. D. A., Costa, A. P. D. A., Sanseverino, A. M., Gomes, C. F. S., & Santos, M. D. (2022). Bibliometric studies on multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) methods applied in military problems. Pesquisa Operacional, 42, e249414. https://doi.org/10.1590/0101-7438.2022.042.00249414.

Ayan, B., & Abacıoğlu, S. (2022). Bibliometric analysis of the MCDM methods in the last decade: WASPAS, MABAC, EDAS, CODAS, COCOSO, and MARCOS. International Journal of Business and Economic Studies, 4(2), 65-85. https://doi.org/10.54821/uiecd.1183443.

Khulud, K., Masudin, I., Zulfikarijah, F., Restuputri, D. P., & Haris, A. (2023). Sustainable supplier selection through multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) approach: a bibliometric analysis. Logistics, 7(4), 96. https://doi.org/10.3390/logistics7040096.

Sahoo, S. K., Choudhury, B. B., & Dhal, P. R. (2024). A bibliometric analysis of material selection using MCDM methods: trends and insights. Spectrum of Mechanical Engineering and Operational Research, 1(1), 189-205. https://doi.org/10.31181/smeor11202417.

Srivastava, S., Tripathi, A., & Arora, N. (2024). Multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) in diverse domains of education: a comprehensive bibliometric analysis for research directions. International Journal of System Assurance Engineering and Management, 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13198-024-02332-9.

Demir, G., Chatterjee, P., & Pamucar, D. (2024). Sensitivity analysis in multi-criteria decision making: A state-of-the-art research perspective using bibliometric analysis. Expert Systems with Applications, 237, 121660. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2023.121660.

Aydın, Y. (2025). Bibliometrics Analysis on Economics and MCDM. Bibliometric Analyses in Data‐Driven Decision‐Making, 169-189. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781394302581.ch6.

Kumar, R., & Pamucar, D. (2025). A comprehensive and systematic review of multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) methods to solve decision-making problems: two decades from 2004 to 2024. Spectrum of Decision Making and Applications, 2(1), 178-197. https://doi.org/10.31181/sdmap21202524.

Passos, J. M. F. G. D., Fonseca, M. N., Baptista, R. M., Nakamura, W. T., & Pereira, J. P. D. M. (2026). Trends in Capital Structure: A Bibliometric Analysis to Support the Construction of Decision-Support Methodologies. International Journal of Financial Studies, 14(3), 69. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijfs14030069.

Tamilarasan, B. S., Kavitha, R., & Sankari, V. S. (2026). Operational research pathways for sustainable fashion supply chains: a comprehensive bibliometric and TCCM review. OPSEARCH, 1-31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12597-025-01087-6.

Miyashita, E. E., & Contreras Pinochet, L. H. (2026). Multi-criteria analysis of cybersecurity maturity in the largest Latin American economies using CRITIC-WISP. Information & Computer Security, 1-26. https://doi.org/10.1108/ICS-08-2025-0294.

Belhouchet, H., Dergaa, I., Zoudji, B., Ceylan, H. İ., Stefanica, V., Khatrouch, I., ... & Azaiez, F. (2026). Multi-criteria decision-making in soccer: a bibliometric analysis. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-026-06968-9.

Pritchard, A., & Wittig, G. R. (1981). Bibliometrics. Watford: AllM Books.

Aria, M., & Cuccurullo, C. (2017). bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. Journal of informetrics, 11(4), 959-975. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2017.08.007.

Donthu, N., Kumar, S., Mukherjee, D., Pandey, N., & Lim, W. M. (2021). How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 133, 285-296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.04.070.

Zupic, I., & Čater, T. (2015). Bibliometric methods in management and organization. Organizational Research Methods, 18(3), 429-472. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428114562629.

Mongeon, P., & Paul-Hus, A. (2016). The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: a comparative analysis. Scientometrics, 106(1), 213-228. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1765-5.

Van Eck, N., & Waltman, L. (2010). Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics, 84(2), 523-538. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3.

Newman, M. E. (2001). The structure of scientific collaboration networks. Proceedings of the national academy of sciences, 98(2), 404-409. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.98.2.404.

Van Raan, A. (2019). Measuring science: Basic principles and application of advanced bibliometrics. In Springer handbook of science and technology indicators (pp. 237-280). Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-2755-9_2.

Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H. D. (2008). What do citation counts measure? A review of studies on citing behavior. Journal of Documentation, 64(1), 45-80. https://doi.org/10.1108/00220410810844150.

De Boer, P. T., Kroese, D. P., Mannor, S., & Rubinstein, R. Y. (2005). A tutorial on the cross-entropy method. Annals of Operations Research, 134(1), 19-67. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-005-5724-z.

Leydesdorff, L. (2007). Mapping interdisciplinarity at the interfaces between the Science Citation Index and the Social Science Citation Index. Scientometrics, 71(3), 391-405. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-007-1694-z.

Larivière, V., Haustein, S., & Mongeon, P. (2015). The oligopoly of academic publishers in the digital era. PLOS One, 10(6), e0127502. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0127502.

Armitage, C. S., Lorenz, M., & Mikki, S. (2020). Mapping scholarly publications related to the Sustainable Development Goals: Do independent bibliometric approaches get the same results?. Quantitative Science Studies, 1(3), 1092-1108. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00071.

Alamoodi, A. H., Zaidan, B. B., Albahri, O. S., Garfan, S., Ahmaro, I. Y., Mohammed, R. T., ... & Malik, R. Q. (2023). Systematic review of the MCDM approach applied to COVID-19 medical case studies: trends, bibliographic analysis, challenges, motivations, recommendations, and future directions. Complex & Intelligent Systems, 9(4), 4705-4731. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40747-023-00972-1.

Sidhu, A. S., Singh, S., & Kumar, R. (2022). Bibliometric analysis of entropy weights method for multi-objective optimization in machining operations. Materials Today: Proceedings, 50, 1248-1255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2021.08.132.