Next Article in Journal
Chaos in Topological Modules
Previous Article in Journal
Fractional Nonlinearity for the Wave Equation with Friction and Viscoelastic Damping
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Three Decades of Fuzzy AHP: A Bibliometric Analysis

by
Fernando Castelló-Sirvent
1,2,*,
Carlos Meneses-Eraso
3,
Jaime Alonso-Gómez
4 and
Marta Peris-Ortiz
2
1
Department of Economics and Finance, ESIC Business & Marketing School, 46021 València, Spain
2
Business Organization Department, Universitat Politècnica de València, 46022 València, Spain
3
Escuela de Economía, Universidad Sergio Arboleda, Bogotá 110221, Colombia
4
School of Business, University of San Diego, San Diego, CA 92110, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Axioms 2022, 11(10), 525; https://doi.org/10.3390/axioms11100525
Submission received: 31 August 2022 / Revised: 28 September 2022 / Accepted: 29 September 2022 / Published: 2 October 2022
(This article belongs to the Section Mathematical Analysis)

Abstract

:
For decades, Fuzzy Sets Theory (FST) has been consistently developed, and its use has spread across multiple disciplines. In this process of knowledge transfer, fuzzy applications have experienced great diffusion. Among them, Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process (fuzzy AHP) is one of the most widely used methodologies today. This study performs a systematic review following the PRISMA statement and addresses a bibliometric analysis of all articles published on fuzzy AHP in journals indexed in Web of Science, specifically in Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE) and Social Science Citation Index (SSCI). The analyzed database includes 2086 articles published between 1994 and 2022. The results show the thematic clusters, the evolution of the academic conversation and the main collaboration networks. The main contribution of this article is to clarify the research agenda on fuzzy AHP. The results of the study allow academics to detect publication opportunities. In addition, the evidence found allows researchers and academics setting the field’s agenda to advise the editors of high-impact journals on gaps and new research trends.

1. Introduction

In recent decades, the recurring persistence of VUCA environments has intensified [1,2,3,4]. Its impact is increasing within the business, political and social contexts. Contemporary challenges make it increasingly necessary for corporate managers and political decisionmakers to analyze and make rational, fast and effective decisions [5,6]. According to new military planning needs [7], from 1970, scientists and academics were developing the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) method. The double objective of the accelerated development of this methodology was (a) to facilitate the decision-making process in complex circumstances, and (b) to have a means to identify the relevant facts and their interrelationships [8]. In essence, the model is made up of three parts: (1) identify and organize decision goals, (2) define criteria, and (3) pose constraints and structure alternatives [9]. AHP can be classified as a multi-criteria decision-making method applied to determine the weight of criteria and priorities of alternatives based on pairwise comparison [10], involving human subjectivity for decision making under uncertainty [11]. A later development of the AHP methodology arises from the interest in mitigating the impact of human subjectivity. In this sense, Liu et al. [10] indicate that the judgment during the comparison can be subjective, therefore, it is necessary to combine fuzzy logic with the AHP method and in this way transform the AHP into Fuzzy AHP (FAHP). Fuzzy set theory allows decision makers to make interval judgments and account for uncertainty [12]. Introducing the method, Zadeh [13] mentions that most of the concepts found in various domains of human knowledge are too complex to admit a simple or precise definition. In fact, a decade earlier, this same author had defined the fuzzy set [14] as a class of objects with a continuous degree of membership.
According to Ho [15], the fields of application of both the AHP and FAHP methods are wide, characterized by ease of use and are combined with mathematical programming tools, the implementation of quality functions and data envelopment analysis. Al-Aziz et al. [16], compare the AHP and FAHP methods, and point out that both deal with stochastic data and can be used to determine the outcome of the decision through a multi-criteria decision-making process. FAHP is also called fuzzy-MPDM (Multi Person Decision Making) or fuzzy-MPPC (Multi Person Preference Criteria), and has taken different variations based on its great adaptability. Some authors extend the AHP and the FAHP, expanding them to configure the intuitionistic fuzzy AHP (IFAHP) [17]. This type of model allows preferences to be represented by intuitionistic fuzzy values and, with this evolution, they can be applied to the resolution of more complex problems. In these cases, the decisionmaker expresses uncertainty when assigning preference values to the objects considered, and the method’s development has allowed for the addressing of the solutions of problems in multiple fields, such as indicators of Human Capital [18], allowing, in these application cases, the consideration of the positive attributes and the negative attributes of the Human Capital indicators at the same time through expert judgments that are guided with IFAHP. Other authors propose a fuzzy variant of AHP, in which “the pairwise comparison of decision elements by domain experts is expressed with triangular fuzzy numbers that allow the degree of expert confidence to be quantified and to reconcile inconsistencies in judgment within the domain. the limits of the fuzzy numbers to generate reasonable values for the weighting factors” [19].
Sipahi and Timor [20] present a review of the application of the AHP method and the FAHP modification; of the articles published between 2005 and 2009, among the most dominant application scenarios are: manufacturing, environmental management and agriculture, the energy industry, the transportation industry, the construction industry and health care. In addition, they present other fields of application that include education, logistics, electronic commerce, information technology, innovation, the telecommunications industry, finance and banking, urban management, the defense and military industry, government, marketing, tourism and leisure, archeology, auditing and the mining industry. Other examples of application of the methodology can be seen in the field of urban management [21], for example, a geographic information system-based model for wind farm site selection that uses an interval type two fuzzy analytical hierarchy process to determine suitable sites for wind farms in Nigeria. In the same line, Beskese et al. [22] address the decision of the location of possible landfills in Istanbul using fuzzy AHP. For their part, Abbasi and Sarabadan [23] present an evaluation model for tactical missile systems based on the AHP and the Technique for Order Preference by Similarity of an Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) in a fuzzy environment where imprecision and subjectivity are managed with linguistic values parameterized by triangular fuzzy numbers, in line with what Cheng proposed [24] for the evaluation of naval tactical missile systems under fuzzy AHP models.
The academic literature has analyzed the relevant risks for the effective adoption and implementation of Green Supply Chain (GSC) practices from the industrial point of view to the extent that they use fuzzy AHP [25]. The human subjectivity and ambiguity involved in the risk analysis process have led to the suggestion of fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making methodologies for selection among renewable energy alternatives, leading them to determine the most suitable renewable energy alternative for Turkey [26]. Equally, Ren and Ren [27] develop a multi-attribute decision analysis framework for prioritizing the sustainability of energy storage technologies, developing a system of criteria in four categories (economic, performance, technological and environmental) which permits the reduction of energy storage costs.
Another example of the fields of application of methodologies based on fuzzy AHP is the process of selecting suppliers that report the greatest satisfaction for the client of a company in Turkey [28]. Fouladgar et al. [29] propose an integrated model to prioritize the strategies of the Iranian mining sector using fuzzy AHP and Fuzzy Technique for Order Preference by Similarity of an Ideal Solution (FTOPSIS), whose results show that improving exploitation and production capacity are priority strategies to boost the sector. Wang et al. [30] build a system of criteria (environmental, technological, economic and social) and perform an evaluation and prioritization of seven bioenergy technologies to select optimal technologies among multiple alternatives using a combination of the VIKOR method to determine the sequence of sustainability of the bioenergy and fuzzy AHP technologies.
Samuel et al. [31] address heart failure with the purpose of predicting risks for prevention and treatment. Accordingly, they used the fuzzy AHP technique to calculate the global weights of the relevant attributes based on the individual contribution of each attribute, and applied the global weights representing the contributions of the attributes to train an artificial neural network (ANN) classifier for risk prediction of heart failure in patients, with an average prediction accuracy of 91.10%, resulting in a 4.40% more efficient process compared to the conventional ANN method.
The purpose of this study is to determine the structure of the research agenda on fuzzy AHP, and identify the existing links in the academic literature of the area. In addition, this research identifies the authors, universities and countries with the most significant generation of knowledge about fuzzy AHP, its analysis from a bibliometric-spatial approach and the main international collaboration networks. Lastly, this study aims to discover the research with the greatest impact on fuzzy AHP and its contexts of application, specifically, the most relevant thematic areas and the bibliographic coupling process of the seminal works in the field of study for each of the clusters identified.
The main novelty of this research is to offer an updated global vision on the construction of the fuzzy AHP research agenda, and to carry out an evaluation of the unclosed gaps in the academic literature, identifying new trends detected in the different association clusters within conceptual academic discourse on fuzzy AHP. The results of this research allow scholars to take advantage of the publication opportunities detected. In addition, journal editors can guide the design of special issues based on the evidence found, understanding and taking advantage of the internal structure of high-impact research in the field.
The article is structured as follows: first, the materials and methods used in this research are presented; second, the results are reported and discussed; third, important recommendations are offered on emerging areas of fuzzy AHP application, gaps not closed by academia, and high-impact publication opportunities underlying the evolution of the research agenda; and, finally, fourth, the conclusions of this study are formulated and developed, proposing future lines of research suggested for the scientific advancement of the field.

2. Materials and Methods

The research was designed following the PRISMA statement [32], the methodology proposed by Tavares Thomé et al. [33], and the bibliometric research standards proposed by Zupic & Čater [34] In short: first, design the research; second, collect bibliometric information; third, analyze and report the results; and fourth, discuss the findings and the publication opportunities detected. The search strategy performed a systematic literature review (SLR) based on the Web of Science Core Collection.
The use of other databases was rejected to avoid direct and indirect biases in the selection of the articles analyzed. Given the intertemporal analyses carried out, the inclusion of databases that were created between the first and the last article analyzed (e.g., Scopus or ESCI) would have caused a sampling bias that would invalidate the applied methodology, as well as introducing inconsistency into the results, findings and conclusions of this study [35,36,37,38]. As a consequence, the Web of Science Core Collection was chosen based on its robustness [39,40] and the continued coverage offered by this database during the 28-year period analyzed [41]. The analysis focused on the impact and academic influence of research published in high-impact journals, so chapters, books and proceedings were ignored. The search terms “fuzzy AHP” or “fuzzy-AHP” were included for title (TI), abstract (AB), author keywords (AK) or keyword plus® (KP). Journal articles from any Science Category website indexed in Journal Citation Reports® (JCR) according to the Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) and Scientific Citation Index Expanded (SCIE) were considered. The search was carried out during Q2 of 2022 and the results included articles published between 1994 and June 2022, according to the reported Boolean criteria. The database built by this procedure included 2086 articles. Congruent with the PRISMA statement, Figure 1 reports the research strategy followed. The “other reasons” that prompted the removal of records (n = 6) on the first list were associated with the academic integrity of the articles, based on critical rejection criteria applied by journals in accordance with best practices in terms of academic integrity and transparency.
The bibliometric analysis was performed with the VOSViewer 1.6.17 software [42]. In accordance with the interest of this research in determining the shape of the research agenda, the Normalized Impact per Year (NIY) was determined for each article [43], and the average of this variable was calculated for each journal and, further, for each cluster identified in the analysis of the bibliographic coupling of articles. The NIY variable is calculated by dividing the total count of citations by the number of years that have elapsed since the publication of an article. The NIY analysis ascertains the academic efficiency of each article in an intertemporal acceleration approach [44]. In addition, NIY contributes to a better understanding of emerging trends in academic debate, identifying seminal articles and journals that mark changes in the acceleration (or deceleration) of the tendency to influence scholars [43,44].
The Documents per Year (DpY) variable was also constructed for each journal, allowing the density of interest of each journal to be reported for the field of study that is the object of this research. In addition, the Citations per Document (CpD) variable was constructed for each article, and it was additionally calculated for each country of affiliation of the authors of the articles analyzed and, further, for each cluster identified in the analysis of the bibliographic coupling of articles. CpD offers relevant information about the academic efficiency of an article, author, country, journal or certain cluster evaluated through “scientometric” analysis [43]. In addition, academic efficiency was measured by adopting a spatial bibliometric perspective based on an analysis of the level of CpD according to a world political map.
Finally, to carry out the analysis of the bibliographic coupling clusters of articles, the Window of Academic Interest and Persistence in the Research Agenda (WAIPRA) variable was constructed, which represents the time elapsed between the first and last year of publication of articles belonging to a cluster. WAIPRA shows the intensity of the thematic anchoring that the articles included in a cluster have built over the years in the academic debate. WAIPRA analysis must take into account duration, chronology and proximity (or distance) with respect to the contemporary temporal vanguard of the study area, and it is possible to categorize 5 different situations based on their value expressed in years from the first and the last article that includes the cluster: (1) If WAIPRA is very strong (greater than two decades), it reports an intense and persistent cluster over time that constitutes central academic literature for the construction of scientific debate. (2) If WAIPRA is strong (greater than a decade), it provides information about the structure of articles underlying the configuration of the research agenda. (2.a) If the year of publication of the last article included in the cluster is close to the present time (less than a decade), the cluster includes articles that scholars are making central to the research agenda and that are becoming mainstream. On the other hand, (2.b) if the year of publication of the last article included in the cluster is far from the current moment (more than a decade), the interest of the academy has decreased, given the dearth of new articles on the thematic field, but the articles included in the cluster are still relevant to configure the researchers’ discourse. (3) A weak WAIPRA (less than a decade) refers to seminal articles that report intense trends for the configuration of academic thought but that were short-lived in their generation. Analogously, (3.a) if the year of publication of the last article included in the cluster is far from the current moment (more than a decade), they are seminal articles whose window of persistence and prevalence was very fleeting but they constitute central elements to articulate the academic debate on the area. On the other hand, (3.b) if the window of academic production is very close to the current moment, it reports emerging trends that are in bloom, not yet fully developed, and that present opportunities for publication in two large areas: (1) in development, configuration and permeabilization of the macro-, meso- or micro-theory; (2) in the application to cases, improving the cross-sectional granularity of the study area and its managerial implications.

3. Results and Discussion

This section reports the results of the systematic literature review (SLR) based on articles published in SSCI and SCIE (n = 2086) and discusses the findings of the biblio-metric analysis based on the practical implications for researchers. First, the documents are analyzed from a longitudinal perspective, their distribution based on the main categories of the Web of Science and their main funding agencies are recorded. Second, the journals with the highest production and academic impact and the most relevant articles in the area of knowledge are reported. Third, the academic production by country and the international collaboration networks detected are analyzed. Fourth, the cluster analysis of bibliographic coupling of articles is reported, evaluating emerging trends in each cluster and discussing opportunities for publication in high-impact journals.

3.1. Preliminary Analysis

The results of the preliminary analysis of articles show a growing trend (R2 = 0.9598) in the scientific production of articles on fuzz-AHP from 2008 (Figure 2). From 2008 on, the previous trend on the use and diffusion of decision-making tools was accelerated. Table 1 reports the Top 25 Web of Science categories in which academic articles were published on the area of study analyzed.
Management, Business or Economics areas occupied modest positions in the ranking, and the areas with the greatest diffusion and interest in the field were related to computing, operations or sciences applied to the environment and sustainability. The evaluation of the main funding agencies (Table 2) that promoted the academic debate on fuzzy AHP highlights the role of institutions from China and Taiwan, relegating European organizations to modest positions. Specifically, the National Natural Science Foundation of China was followed at a great distance by the Ministry of Science and Technology Taiwan or the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities. The European Commission funded 10 times less research than did the National Natural Science Foundation of China.

3.2. Production and Academic Impact

The variables of analysis of academic production and impact by total count of citations allowed the determination of the top 25 journals based on their total academic production (Table 3). The ranking is ordered according to the number of articles on fuzzy AHP published by each journal. The year of publication of the first article is also reported, offering information relevant to the journal’s experience in the field. Finally, the DpY of the journal is reported, showing the academic efficiency achieved by the journal.
A detailed analysis of the first five journals classified in the Top 25 Journals by Articles shows that Expert Systems with Applications is in the first position of the ranking, with more than one hundred published documents. It is followed by Sustainability with 85% of the academic production, and, at a greater distance, continuing in the third, fourth, and fifth position, Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, Journal of Cleaner Production, and Applied Soft Computing. The journal included in the Top 25 Journals by Articles that has the most experience in the fuzzy AHP area is the European Journal of Operational Research, whose first publication was in 1996. Among those included in the Top 25 Journals by Articles, there are three journals that had their first publication on fuzzy AHP at a very recent date, in 2019: IEEE Access Mathematics, and Environment Development and Sustainability. These are three journals that, despite having a short history of publication on fuzzy AHP, with less than 3 years since the first publication, manage to be included in the Top 25 for publication of articles, which demonstrates the topic’s relative importance and the intensity of the process of extension of the journals’ domain in the area of knowledge. These three magazines are linked to technical areas of engineering and mathematics, as well as to the environment and issues of sustainability.
The detailed analysis of the DpY reports a high efficiency of academic publication per year for five journals that are above the average of the Top 25 Journals by Articles: Sustainability (DpY = 12.6), IEEE Access (DpY = 8), Expert Systems with Applications (DpY = 7); Mathematics (DpY = 6.3); and Environment Development and Sustainability (DpY = 5). These are journals whose scope is linked to areas of knowledge such as sustainability, technical aspects of engineering and mathematical sciences, and the environment.
The evidence found shows that the journals that have articulated a more intense expansion strategy in recent years in the field of fuzzy AHP are linked to technical and environmental areas, both in absolute terms (total number of articles published) and in relative terms (average number of articles per year; DpY). On the other hand, the Top 25 Journals by Citations (Table 4) were also determined. This ranking classifies and ranks the journals based on their ability to impact the academic community, expressed as the total count of citations achieved by all the articles published in the fuzzy AHP area. The year of the first publication is also reported and the NIY average is constructed, as the average of the NIY of all the articles published by each journal.
The results show important differences in classification in terms of citations obtained, compared to the classification in terms of published articles. For example, the European Journal of Operational Research was ranked 24th for the number of articles published on fuzzy AHP, and in the ranking for academic impact expressed as a total count of citations, this journal was ranked second in the ranking, with 5110 citations. Another paradigmatic example is Sustainability, which occupies the second position in the ranking by articles, but is located in the twelfth position in the ranking by citations. This comparison allows us to verify the efficiency gap of many journals, given the significant distances in the trade-off between the number of published articles and the real impact of these articles on the scientific community.
On the other hand, the Normalized Impact per Year (NIY), taken as an average of all the articles in a journal, reports information relevant to the determination of average academic efficiency within an intertemporal scheme of scientific production. This variable must be taken into consideration together with the year of publication of the first article, since a high NIY for a recent year (e.g., the age of the first article published in the journal is less than 10 years) reports that the journal has a strong trend within the area of knowledge of fuzzy AHP. This indicator represents a signal of temporal acceleration for a subperiod, confirming that the journal takes up a relevant participation in the configuration of the research structure on the area. Resources Conservation and Recycling (First year: 2012; NIY = 16.8) has generated an accelerated relative impact on the research agenda in recent years.
Other journals with a high NIY Average report a year of publication of the first article on fuzzy AHP prior to the last decade. Based on the evidence found, these journals should be considered seminal in the area of knowledge, since they report a high performance in academic efficiency, demonstrating a capacity for persistent impact within the academic community. In this sense, compare the European Journal of Operational Research (First year: 1996; NIY = 18.5), the International Journal of Production Economics (First year: 2004; NIY = 18.7), Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment (First year: 2006; NIY = 10.7), the Journal of Construction Engineering and Management (First year: 2007; NIY = 11.3), Safety Science (First year: 2008; NIY = 12.6), Applied Soft Computing (First year: 2008; NIY = 11.6), International Journal of Hydrogen Energy (First year: 2008; NIY = 10.7), Automation in Construction (First year: 2008; NIY = 10.7), Energy (First year: 2008; NIY = 10.2), the Journal of Cleaner Production (First year: 2009; NIY = 11.7), and Soft Computing (First year: 2009; NIY = 9.7). These are journals focused on multiple areas (operations, production, environment, construction engineering, computing and energy), evidencing the thematic transversality of the persistent development of the field of knowledge object of this study.
The results confirm that from the time that the Great Financial Crisis (GFC) began their publications on fuzzy AHP, many of the journals that are classified in the ranking with the highest relative impact expressed similar interest based on the NIY. The systemic change represented by the GFC acted as an accelerator in the interest of scholars in the fuzzy AHP area, and in the speed and transversality of the diffusion of the area over academics. In fact, the threshold set in 2008 has been used in multiple bibliometric articles (e.g., Bai et al. [45] or Kocak et al. [46]) to study the strong trend change experienced among scholars, being especially relevant in the fields of business and management [47].
Table 5 reports the articles with the most impact within the study area on fuzzy AHP and its applications. In the Top 25 Articles by Citations are articles oriented to the analysis of applications of exempt analysis method on fuzzy AHP [48], supplier selection [49,50,51], fuzzy AHP for evaluating performance of IT departments in the manufacturing industries [52], selection of optimum maintenance strategies [53], behavior-based safety management [54], catering service companies [55], prioritization of human capital measurement indicators [56] or evaluation of the weights of customer requirements in quality function deployment [57], and weights in quality function deployment (QFD) process [58]. Other high-impact articles studied extent analysis methods [59], consistency in fuzzy AHP [60] and failure in fuzzy TOPSIS-based fuzzy AHP [61], or made revisions [15,62], compared fuzzy AHP and TOPSIS [63,64,65], integrated both methodologies [66,67], combined axiomatic design and AHP [68] or fuzzy AHP [26], applied the AHP method through intuitionistic fuzzy extensions [17] or compared AHP and Analytic Networks Process (ANP) [20].
Table 5. Top 25 Articles by Citations.
Table 5. Top 25 Articles by Citations.
Article TitleAuthorsYearJournalCitesNIY
Applications of the Extent Analysis Method on Fuzzy AHP [48]Chang, D.Y.1996European Journal of Operational Research243693.7
Integrated Analytic Hierarchy Process and its Applications—A Literature Review [15]Ho, W.2008European Journal of Operational Research55239.4
Multi-Attribute Comparison of Catering Service Companies Using Fuzzy AHP: The case of Turkey [55]Kahraman, C.; Cebeci, U.; Ruan, D.2004International Journal of Production Economics46725.9
On the Extent Analysis Method for Fuzzy AHP and its Applications [62]Wang, Y.M.; Luo, Y.; Hua, Z.2008European Journal of Operational Research43731.2
A Comparison Between Fuzzy AHP and Fuzzy TOPSIS Methods to Supplier Selection [64]Lima, F.R.; Osiro, L.; Carpinetti, L.C.R.2014Applied Soft Computing43254.0
Global Supplier Selection: A Fuzzy AHP Approach [50]Chan, F.T.S.; Kumar, N.; Tiwari, M.K.; Lau, H.C.W.; Choy, K.L.2008International Journal of Production Research38927.8
A Performance Evaluation Model by Integrating Fuzzy AHP and Fuzzy TOPSIS Methods [66]Sun, C.C.2010Expert Systems with Applications37231.0
Supplier Selection Using Fuzzy AHP and Fuzzy Multi-Objective Linear Programming for Developing Low Carbon Supply Chain [49]Shaw, K.; Shankar, R.; Yadav, S.S.; Thakur, L.S.2012Expert Systems with Applications36936.9
An Integrated Framework for Sustainable Supplier Selection and Evaluation in Supply Chains [51]Luthra, S.; Govindan, K.; Kannan, D.; Mangla, S.K.; Garg, C.P.2017Journal of Cleaner Production37575.0
Fuzzy Failure Modes and Effects Analysis by Using Fuzzy TOPSIS-based Fuzzy AHP [61]Kutlu, A.C.; Ekmekcioglu, M.2012Expert Systems with Applications34334.3
On Consistency and Ranking of Alternatives in Fuzzy AHP [60]Leung, L.C.; Cao, D.2000European Journal of Operational Research31614.4
A Fuzzy AHP and BSC Approach for Evaluating Performance of IT Department in the Manufacturing Industry in Taiwan [52]Lee, A.H.I.; Chen, W.C.; Chang, C.J.2008Expert Systems with Applications32823.4
A Discussion on Extent Analysis Method and Applications of Fuzzy AHP [59]Zhu, K.J.; Jing, Y.; Chang, D.Y.1999European Journal of Operational Research31213.6
Determining the Importance Weights for the Customer Requirements in QFD Using a Fuzzy AHP with an Extent Analysis Approach [58]Kwong, C.K.; Bai, H.2003IIE Transactions30516.1
Construction Projects Selection and Risk Assessment by Fuzzy AHP and Fuzzy TOPSIS Methodologies [65]Taylan, O.; Bafail, A.O.; Abdulaal, R.M.S.; Kabli, M.R.2014Applied Soft Computing30337.9
Fuzzy Multi-Attribute Selection Among Transportation Companies Using Axiomatic Design and Analytic Hierarchy Process [68]Kulak, O.; Kahraman, C.2005Information Sciences29617.4
Evaluation of Hazardous Waste Transportation Firms by Using a Two Step Fuzzy AHP and TOPSIS Methodology [63]Gumus, A.T.2009Expert Systems with Applications30423.4
Selection of Optimum Maintenance Strategies Based on a Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process [53]Wang, L.; Chu, J.; Wu, J.2007International Journal of Production Economics30020.0
Developing a Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) Model for Behavior-Based Safety Management [54]Dagdeviren, M.; Yuksel, I.2008Information Sciences28420.3
Intuitionistic Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process [17]Xu, Z.S.; Liao, H.C.2014IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems27334.1
Combining Grey Relation and TOPSIS Concepts for Selecting an Expatriate Host Country [67]Chen, M.F.; Tzeng, G.H.2004Mathematical and Computer Modelling27515.3
A Comparative Analysis for Multiattribute Selection Among Renewable Energy Alternatives Using Fuzzy Axiomatic Design and Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process [26]Kahraman, C.; Kaya, I.; Cebi, S.2009Energy28221.7
The Analytic Hierarchy Process and Analytic Network Process: An Overview of Applications [20]Sipahi, S.; Timor, M.2010Management Decision26922.4
A Fuzzy AHP Approach to the Determination of Importance Weights of Customer Requirements in Quality Function Deployment [57]Kwong, C.K.; Bai, H.2002Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing24112.1
Prioritization of Human Capital Measurement Indicators Using Fuzzy AHP [56]Bozbura, F.T.; Beskese, A.; Kahraman, C.2007Expert Systems with Applications26817.9
Source: Authors’ elaboration.
Following the approach proposed by Castelló-Sirvent [43], a detailed analysis of the NIY reports an average of 30 citations per year for the 25 articles included in the ranking (Table 5). Thus, taking the articles published in the last decade that are included in the Top 25 Articles by Citations, all the articles show a NIY above the threshold established as average. The academic efficiency of two investigations that widely exceed the average of the most cited articles on fuzzy AHP stands out ([51], NIY = 75; [64], NIY = 54). In these cases, the trend acceleration indicator represented by the NIY [43,44] confirms that both articles have contributed to the articulation of the academic debate, configuring turning points for recent academic literature. In both cases, the mainstream area of interest is the application of fuzzy AHP methodologies to the supply chain. Less than five years old, the article by Luthra et al., in application of an analysis for sustainable supplier selections [51] becomes mainstream within the research agenda, and with an antiquity of less than 8 years, the article by Lima et al., in application of comparison between fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS methods to supplier selection [64] performs a similar function within the literature.

3.3. Academic Production by Country and International Collaboration Networks

Since the first seminal publications in the area, the academic production in the field of fuzzy AHP has been distributed by country as shown in Table 6. The analysis includes the production of articles on fuzzy AHP that gave rise to five or more published articles in journals of the Business or Management areas indexed in JCR. The ranking of countries is reported based on the academic efficiency achieved by country according to the average count of citations per published document (CpD). According to Castelló-Sirvent [43], a high CpD reports a country with a reduced number of published articles and that achieves a great deal of relevance and influence in the academy. A reduced CpD reports a country with a large number of published articles that, in comparative terms, has little relevance and influence in the academy.
The results of the research report on the Top 10 of maximum academic efficiency includes seven European countries (Belgium, CpD = 82.8; Wales, CpD = 78.3; Denmark, CpD = 72.9; Germany, CpD = 39.1; Austria, CpD = 39; Lithuania, CpD = 39; England, CpD = 36.6), an Asian country (Singapore, CpD = 44.9) and another LATAM country (Chile, CpD = 36.6). Given that they achieve a very high ComD as a result of very few published articles—less than 10 articles—three countries stand out for their high academic efficiency within the Top 10: Wales, Belgium, and Chile.
The classification of the final part of the ranking of countries by academic production equal to or greater than 5 articles published in the area of knowledge under study also highlights the low academic efficiency of the production of researchers whose academic affiliation is based in Saudi Arabia (CpD = 13.5), Pakistan (CpD = 12.7), Russia (CpD = 10.6), Colombia (CpD = 10.2), Mexico (CpD = 8.7), Czechia (CpD = 8), Slovenia (CpD = 7.5), Croatia (CpD = 7.3), Norway (CpD = 6.2) and Romania (CpD = 5.1).
Figure 3 reports the spatial bibliometric results of the analysis performed in this study. The academic efficiency map reports on four levels of country performance according to the Citations per Document (CpD) variable: Very high academic efficiency (CpD > 30) in red. High academic efficiency (20 < CpD < 30) in yellow. Moderate academic performance (10 < CpD < 20) in blue. Low academic efficiency (CpD < 10) in black.
The results of the analysis carried out for the bibliographic coupling of countries report 10 clusters of international collaboration in research on fuzzy AHP (Figure 4). The evidence found does not report homogeneous geographical links, but rather that the connections between countries are transversal between continents, or political and economic unions. The analysis carried out includes links between co-authors of researchers whose institutions are based in the countries analyzed for a minimum of five articles published in JCR on the area of knowledge under study, according to journals included in the Business or Management categories of the Web of Science.
The four main international collaborations integrate links between 41 countries: Cluster 1 includes 16 countries (Denmark, England, Germany, Greece, India, Iran, Italy, Lithuania, The Netherlands, Norway, Serbia, Slovenia, Taiwan, Turkey, USA, and Wales). Cluster 2 includes 10 countries (Australia, Austria, Canada, Croatia, Egypt, Hungary, Malaysia, New Zealand, Nigeria, and South Africa). Cluster 3 includes 8 countries (Bangladesh, Colombia, Japan Mexico, Poland, Russia, Scotland, and Spain). Cluster 4 includes 7 countries (Finland, Pakistan, China, Romania, Saudi Arabia, Thailand, and the United Arab Emirates). The 6 remaining clusters bring together a total of 13 countries (Cluster 5: Chile, Czechia, France, and Qatar; Cluster 6: Brazil, Sweden, Vietnam; Cluster 7: Morocco and Switzerland; Cluster 8: Singapore and South Korea; Cluster 9: Portugal; Cluster 10: Belgium).

3.4. Bibliographic Coupling of Articles, Emerging Trends and High-Impact Publication Opportunities

The detailed analysis of the academic discourse allows the understanding of the internal structure of the research agenda in the field. The results of the evaluation of the bibliographic coupling of articles report six clusters (Figure 5). Table 7 focuses on the detail of articles, year of publication of the first and last article, total number of citations obtained and NIY average for each cluster.
Cluster 1 [11,17,26,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,62,63,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92,93,94,95,96,97,98,99,100] is the most active in number of articles and total citations. This cluster also has the strongest WAIPRA of all the clusters identified in the article bibliographic coupling analysis, although the NIY Average of the articles included in this cluster is the lowest of all. It is confirmed that the 46 articles included in cluster 1 are persistent over time and the development of the academic literature that offers articulation to the academic debate from this cluster is still under development, given that the last article included in the cluster is from 2020. The results of cluster 1 (Appendix A; Table A1) address important publication opportunities relevant to the analysis of strategic decisions [84], airline industries [83] risk assessment [69], urban land-use planning [73], power distribution systems [92] and renewable energy [70], potential flood prone areas mapping [75] and landslide susceptibility mapping [74], passenger shipping [85] or teaching performance [72], among others.
Cluster 2 [22,25,51,61,65,101,102,103,104,105,106,107,108,109,110,111,112,113,114,115,116,117,118,119,120,121,122,123,124,125,126,127] registers a WAIPRA significantly lower than cluster 1. It includes 33 articles and a NIY Average 50% higher than cluster 1. The results suggest a higher persistence. Given that the year of publication of the last article included in this cluster is close to the present time, the evidence found informs about trending topics that are in development, but unlike cluster 1 they have a higher internal prevalence, since they have greater capacity academic impact and influence on the research agenda. Cluster 2 allows researchers to be advised on research opportunities (Appendix A; Table A2) linked to risk assessment [106,108,114,124,125], water loss management in developing countries [112], renewable strategic renewable energy resources selection [123], automotive components remanufacturing industry [101], or logistics barriers [126], and supply chains [51].
Cluster 3 includes 22 items [15,20,28,31,49,50,64,128,129,130,131,132,133,134,135,136,137,138,139,140,141,142] and it registers a strong WAIPRA, over a decade, whose last article was published 3 years ago (Appendix A; Table A3). The absence of more recent articles suggests that, despite having a high NIY Average (NIY Average = 24.8), and reporting an intense trend of influence on the academic debate, the thematic field seems stagnant to configure a line of development of the literature, although it is central to support the construction of the internal structure of the area of knowledge. However, some seminal works of the cluster should be taken into account as inspiration for the design of new research on sustainability as a guide for strategic decision-making [143] and for the configuration of green supply chains [140].
Clusters 4, 5 and 6 (Appendix A; Table A4, Table A5 and Table A6) record few articles, but they are very important for the configuration of the academic debate. Cluster 4 includes nine items [52,67,144,145,146,147,148,149,150] and registers a WAIPRA equal to cluster 1, but the distance from the temporal vanguard suggests that the central contributions to the debate included in that cluster have already been made. However, cluster 4 evinces support for new research linked to specific methodologies such as SWOT [145], fuzzy DEMATEL [147] or fuzzy WASPAS [146], and applications to health [148], information technologies [52] or circular supply chain management in developing countries [144]. Cluster 5 includes seven items [24,48,143,151,152,153,154]. The last article published within the cluster is nine years old. This cluster registers the third highest NIY Average of the 6 clusters identified in the article bibliographic coupling analysis. The results suggest that cluster 5 includes very important articles for the construction of the academic debate on basic and applied research on fuzzy AHP, highlighting the article by Chang [48] (Citations = 2436; NIY = 93.7) and other core-articles for the methodological configuration of the area based on linguistic preferences [151] and in application to ICT service industries [143] or military issues [24,154]. Cluster 6 only includes four articles and a very small WAIPRA of only 2 years. The four articles included in this cluster were published between 2010 and 2012. The NIY average is also very low. The results suggest that the items included in cluster 6 are niche and highly specialized. These are relevant articles for the configuration of the research agenda in the integration of very specific methodological fields (e.g., fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS to help the industrial practitioners for the performance evaluation in a fuzzy environment where the vagueness and subjectivity are handled with linguistic values parameterized by triangular fuzzy numbers [66]; fuzzy Delphi method and fuzzy AHP to select recycling technologies and policy for waste lubricant oil [155]; fuzzy AHP and ELECTRE methodologies to improve the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), considering possible impacts that a proposed project may have on the natural, social and economic aspects [156]; fuzzy AHP and fuzzy DEMATEL method in Human Resource for Science and Technology (HRST) [157]).
Liu et al. (2020) present a synthesis of the choice of fuzzy sets by answering the following questions: when is the fuzzy set applicable? What does it describe? How is it defined? in addition to a classification of the complexity of the method according to the difficulty of its arithmetic operations as shown in the following table. In this sense, Appendix B (Table A7) reports the main fuzzy AHP methodologies according to Liu et al. [10]. It is possible to observe a detailed analysis for the different typologies, as well as the most influential articles for each of them. On the other hand, the Appendix (Table A8) includes details of seminal articles that compare and/or hybridize fuzzy AHP with other MCDM methodologies.

4. Conclusions

Increasingly, decisions are more complex and the information more scarce. This study generates an important ordering of three decades of research in this area to facilitate the future investigation for different disciplines and application fields. The recent succession of changes that have taken place in the VUCA environment force managers to make quick decisions that minimize the implicit risk of insufficient and uncertain information. Fuzzy AHP methodologies have evolved in recent years and academics and experts have extended their development and broadened their fields of application. The new trends detected in this research offer important suggestions so that scholars can guide their future research on fuzzy AHP. The results show that sectors such as renewable energies, new urban developments and water management, green supply chain, circular economy applied to components of automotive industries, and many other activities, such as health, tourism, airline industries, military issues, or information technologies are amenable to fuzzy AHP technologies. Some trends of interest to the academy arise from the hybridization and comparison of methodologies. Some developments in this sense combine fuzzy AHP with fuzzy TOPSIS, fuzzy Delphi method, ELECTRE or DEMATEL. The Top 25 Web of Science categories (this ranking classifies and ranks the journals based on their impact within the academic community) in which academic articles were published on the area of study analyzed is led by Computer Science Artificial Intelligence with 391 articles, which is a field in full growth worldwide.
Another important contribution is that the literature suggests identifying the appropriate method to apply to a specific field. This will depend on its mathematical complexity, the level of precision of the opinions and, of course, the method of application.
What has justified this bibliometric research on fuzzy AHP is, firstly, that this methodology enables the inclusion of circumstances and determining factors in decision-making that are difficult to incorporate in other decision-making procedures and algorithms. Fuzzy AHP is a method characterized by its amplitude and flexibility in admitting different data on the conditioning factors of the environment in which the decisions of a company, a government project or any other social initiative must be taken. This is what makes valuable a method which, without renouncing the advantages of mathematical and formal procedures, considers multiple aspects of reality.
The bibliometric study carried out in this article shows the importance of the AHP fuzzy methodology through the significance of academic publications on this subject. To this end, this article presents a bibliographic review, incorporating different analysis tools (NIY, Normalized Impact per Year; DpY, Documents Published per Year; CpD, Citations per Document; WAIPRA, Window of Academic Interest and Persistence in the Research Agenda), and establishes which articles become the mainstream of the research agenda. The results of the study show that AHP can be applied in numerous areas, such as renewable energies, urban developments, water management or supply chain management with success and is a technique whose full deployment is still present as a trend, so it is an attractive field for research and publication. Besides the business industries where AHP can be applied, the cluster analysis shows (see Figure 5 and Table 7) five great theoretical areas of application: analysis of strategic decisions, risk assessment, sustainability, basic and applied research on fuzzy, and methodologies (SWOT, fuzzy DEMATEL or fuzzy WASPAS).
Secondly, and even more importantly in terms of fuzzy AHP trends, these trends are linked to the culture of companies and, in a more general sense, to the culture of management, to the culture of research in decision-making, and to the culture of society as a whole. In this way, the evidence found does not report homogeneous geographical links, but rather that the connections between countries are transversal between continents, or political and economic unions, which is convenient for future research collaborations between different research centers and collaboration networks.
In this way, the bibliometric study becomes a support tool for sociological research, and contributes to a better understanding of fuzzy AHP that can lead to a different culture: ways of decision-making that better combine formal rigor with variety and flexibility; changing the forms and procedures of decision-making and how this affects the scientific community and, through it, the procedures of management in the business world; and how, through its impact on this broad area of society, it changes society itself as a whole. It is important too to have a whole picture of where and how the appropriate techniques for building AHP models are implemented [10].
This is what gives the present research its greatest significance. The previous paragraphs suggest future lines of research that can make bibliometrics a more widely used tool for understanding trends and patterns of behavior in society that are reflected in different publications, which is a challenge that must be faced in the coming years.
On the other hand, there are limitations of the present work that are due to the state of the art in the current development of bibliometric analysis techniques. As these techniques become more developed, the interpretation of the material studied may become more useful, more usable as a reliable reflection of some of the cultural characteristics and practices of society.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, F.C.-S.; methodology, F.C.-S.; software, F.C.-S.; validation, F.C.-S., C.M.-E., J.A.-G. and M.P.-O.; formal analysis, F.C.-S.; investigation, F.C.-S. and C.M.-E.; resources, F.C.-S.; data curation, F.C.-S.; writing—original draft preparation, F.C.-S., C.M.-E., J.A.-G. and M.P.-O.; writing—review and editing, F.C.-S., C.M.-E., J.A.-G. and M.P.-O.; visualization, F.C.-S.; supervision, F.C.-S. project administration, F.C.-S., C.M.-E., J.A.-G. and M.P.-O. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

Data sharing not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Nomenclature

ABAbstract
AHPAnalytical Hierarchy Process
ANNArtificial Neural Network
ANPAnalytic Networks process
AKAuthor keywords
DpYDocuments per Year
FAHPFuzzy Analytical Hierarchy Process
F-AHPFuzzy Analytical Hierarchy Process
fsQCAFuzzy-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis
Fuzzy AHPFuzzy Analytical Hierarchy Process
fuzzy-MPDMFuzzy Multi Person Decision Making
fuzzy-MPPCFuzzy Multi Person Preference Criteria
FTOPSISFuzzy Technique for Order Preference by Similarity of an Ideal Solution
GSCGreen Supply Chain
GFCGreat Financial Crisis
IFAHPIntuitionistic fuzzy Analytical Hierarchy Process
ITInformation Technology
JCRJournal Citation Reports®
KPKeyword Plus®
NIYNormalized Impact per Year
SSCISocial Sciences Citation Index
SCIEScience Citation Index Expanded
TITitle
TOPSISTechnique for Order Preference by Similarity of an Ideal Solution
TSTopic
VUCAVolatility (V), Uncertatinty (U), Complexity (C) and Ambiguity (A)
WAIPRAWindow of Academic Interest and Persistence in the Research Agenda

Appendix A. Bibliographic Coupling per Documents—Cluster Analysis

Table A1. Articles included in Cluster 1 sorted by NIY.
Table A1. Articles included in Cluster 1 sorted by NIY.
Article TitleAuthorsYearJournalCitesNIY
Risk Assessment Using a New Consulting Process in Fuzzy AHP [69]Lyu, H.M.; Sun, W.J.; Shen, S.L.; Zhou, A.N.2020Journal of Construction Engineering and Management10351.5
A Novel Spherical Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process and Its Renewable Energy Application [70]Gundogdu, F.K.; Kahraman, C.2020Soft Computing10150.5
Intuitionistic Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process [17]Xu, Z.S.; Liao, H.C.2014IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems27334.1
On the Extent Analysis Method for Fuzzy AHP and its Applications [62]Wang, Y.M.; Luo, Y.; Hua, Z.2008European Journal of Operational Research43731.2
Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process with Interval Type-2 Fuzzy Sets [71]Kahraman, C.; Oztaysi, B.; Sari, I.U.; Turanoglu, E.2014Knowledge-based Systems22928.6
Evaluating Teaching Performance Based on Fuzzy AHP and Comprehensive Evaluation Approach [72]Chen, J.F.; Hsieh, H.N.; Do, Q.H.2015Applied Soft Computing18927.0
Multi-attribute Comparison of Catering Service Companies Using Fuzzy AHP: The Case of Turkey [55]Kahraman, C.; Cebeci, U.; Ruan, D.2004International Journal of Production Economics46725.9
Comparison of Fuzzy AHP and AHP in a Spatial Multi-criteria Decision Making Model for Urban Land-use Planning [73]Mosadeghi, R.; Warnken, J.; Tomlinson, R.; Mirfenderesk, H.2015Computers Environment and Urban Systems18125.9
Evaluation of Hazardous Waste Transportation Firms by Using a Two Step Fuzzy AHP and TOPSIS Methodology [63]Gumus, A.T.2009Expert Systems with Applications30423.4
A Comparative Analysis for Multiattribute Selection Among Renewable Energy Alternatives Using Fuzzy Axiomatic Design and Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process [26]Kahraman, C.; Kaya, I.; Cebi, S.2009Energy28221.7
A GIS-based Extended Fuzzy Multi-criteria Evaluation for Landslide Susceptibility Mapping [74]Feizizadeh, B.; Roodposhti, M.S.; Jankowski, P.; Blaschke, T.2014Computers & Geosciences17021.3
Developing a Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) Model for Behavior-based Safety Management [54]Dagdeviren, M.; Yuksel, I.2008Information Sciences28420.3
Selection of Optimum Maintenance Strategies Based on a Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process [53]Wang, L.; Chu, J.; Wu, J.2007International Journal of Production Economics30020.0
Multi-Criteria Analysis Framework for Potential Flood Prone Areas Mapping [75]Papaioannou, G.; Vasiliades, L.; Loukas, A.2015Water Resources Management13919.9
Optimal Preventive Maintenance Policy for Electric Power Distribution Systems Based on the Fuzzy AHP Methods [76]Firouz, M.H.; Ghadimi, N.2016Complexity11919.8
Comparison of Fuzzy AHP and Fuzzy TOPSIS Methods for Facility Location Selection [77]Ertugrul, I.; Karakasoglu, N.2008International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology25618.3
Hospital Site Selection Using Fuzzy AHP and Its Derivatives [78]Vahidnia, M.H.; Alesheikh, A.A.; Alimohammadi, A.2009Journal of Environmental Management23418.0
Prioritization of Human Capital Measurement Indicators Using Fuzzy AHP [56]Bozbura, F.T.; Beskese, A.; Kahraman, C.2007Expert Systems with Applications26817.9
A Fuzzy AHP Application in Government-sponsored R&D Project Selection [79]Huang, C.C.; Chu, P.Y.; Chiang, Y.H.2008Omega-International Journal of Management Science24717.6
Fuzzy Multi-attribute Selection Among Transportation Companies using Axiomatic Design and Analytic Hierarchy Process [68]Kulak, O.; Kahraman, C.2005Information Sciences29617.4
Determining the Importance Weights for the Customer Requirements in QFD Using a Fuzzy AHP with an Extent Analysis Approach [58]Kwong, C.K.; Bai, H.2003IIE Transactions30516.1
A Fuzzy AHP Approach to Personnel Selection ProblemGungor, Z.; Serhadlioglu, G.; Kesen, S.E.2009Applied Soft Computing20215.5
Fuzzy AHP-based Decision Support System for Selecting ERP Systems in Textile Industry by Using Balanced Scorecard [80]Cebeci, U.2009Expert Systems with Applications19715.2
On the Invalidity of Fuzzifying Numerical Judgments in the Analytic Hierarchy Process [82]Saaty, T.L.; Tran, L.T.2007Mathematical and Computer Modelling22715.1
Development of a Fuzzy ANP Based SWOT Analysis for the Airline Industry in Turkey [83]Sevkli, M.; Oztekin, A.; Uysal, O.; Torlak, G.; Turkyilmaz, A.; Delen, D.2012Expert Systems with Applications14914.9
On Consistency and Ranking of Alternatives in Fuzzy AHP [60]Leung, L.C.; Cao, D.2000European Journal of Operational Research31614.4
Strategic Decision Selection Using Hesitant Fuzzy TOPSIS and Interval Type-2 Fuzzy AHP: A case study [84]Onar, S.C.; Oztaysi, B.; Kahraman, C.2014International Journal of Computational Intelligence Systems11214.0
A Discussion on Extent Analysis Method and Applications of Fuzzy AHP [59]Zhu, K.J.; Jing, Y.; Chang, D.Y.1999European Journal of Operational Research31213.6
Selecting a Cruise Port of Call Location Using the Fuzzy AHP Method: A Case Study in East Asia [85]Wang, Y.; Jung, K.A.; Yeo, G.T.; Chou, C.C.2014Tourism Management10413.0
Fuzzy AHP Approach for Selecting the Suitable Bridge Construction Method [86]Pan, N.F.2008Automation in Construction18213.0
A Fuzzy AHP Approach to Evaluating Machine Tool Alternatives [87]Ayag, Z.; Ozdemir, R.G.2006Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing20612.9
Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process: A Logarithmic Fuzzy Preference Programming Methodology [88]Wang, Y.M.; Chin, K.S.2011International Journal of Approximate Reasoning14012.7
A Fuzzy AHP Approach to the Determination of Importance Weights of Customer Requirements in Quality Function Deployment [57]Kwong, C.K.; Bai, H.2002Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing24112.1
Computer-aided Machine-tool Selection Based on a Fuzzy AHP Approach [89]Duran, O.; Aguilo, J.2008Expert Systems with Applications16011.4
Fuzzy AHP-based Multicriteria Decision Making Systems Using Particle Swarm Optimization [90]Javanbarg, M.B.; Scawthorn, C.; Kiyono, J.; Shahbodaghkhan, B.2012Expert Systems with Applications10910.9
Fuzzy AHP-based Study of Cleaner Production Implementation in Taiwan PWB Manufacturer [91]Tseng, M.L.; Lin, Y.H.; Chiu, A.S.F.2009Journal of Cleaner Production14010.8
Critical Component Identification in Reliability Centered Asset Management of Power Distribution Systems Via Fuzzy AHPDehghanian, P.; Fotuhi-Firuzabad, M.; Bagheri-Shouraki, S.; Kazemi, A.A.R.2012IEEE Systems Journal10010.0
A GP-AHP Method for Solving Group Decision-making Fuzzy AHP Problems [92]Yu, C.S.2002Computers & Operations Research1939.7
A Web-based Decision Support System for Multi-criteria Inventory Classification Using Fuzzy AHP Methodology [94]Cakir, O.; Canbolat, M.S.2008Expert Systems with Applications1289.1
Application of Fuzzy Extended AHP Methodology on Shipping Registry Selection: The case of Turkish maritime industry [95]Celik, M.; Er, I.D.; Ozok, A.F.2009Expert Systems with Applications1168.9
Assessing Contractor Selection Criteria Weights with Fuzzy AHP Method Application in Group Decision Environment [96]Jaskowski, P.; Biruk, S.; Bucon, R.2010Automation in Construction1068.8
A Fuzzy Analytic Network Process (ANP) Model to Identify Faulty Behavior Risk (FBR) in Work System [97]Dagdeviren, M.; Yuksel, I.; Kurt, M.2008Safety Science1138.1
A Fuzzy AHP-based Simulation Approach to Concept Evaluation in a NPD Environment [98]Ayag, Z.2005IIE Transactions1378.1
Risk-based Environmental Decision-making Using Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process (F-AHP) [11]Tesfamariam, S.; Sadiq, R.2006Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment1237.7
Operating System Selection Using Fuzzy Replacement Analysis and Analytic Hierarchy Process [99]Tolga, E.; Demircan, M.L.; Kahraman, C.2005International Journal of Production Economics1247.3
Quality Function Deployment Implementation Based on Analytic Network Process with Linguistic Data: An application in automotive industry [100]Ertay, T.; Buyukozkan, G.; Kahraman, C.; Ruan, D.2005Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems1015.9
Source: Authors’ elaboration.
Table A2. Articles included in Cluster 2 sorted by NIY.
Table A2. Articles included in Cluster 2 sorted by NIY.
Article TitleAuthorsYearJournalCitesNIY
An Integrated Framework for Sustainable Supplier Selection and Evaluation in Supply Chains [51]Luthra, S.; Govindan, K.; Kannan, D.; Mangla, S.K.; Garg, C.P.2017Journal of Cleaner Production37575.0
Strategic Renewable Energy Resources Selection for Pakistan: Based on SWOT-Fuzzy AHP Approach [123]Wang, Y.; Xu, L.; Solangi, Y.A.2020Sustainable Cities and Society11457.0
A Novel Approach to Risk Assessment for Occupational Health and Safety using Pythagorean Fuzzy AHP & Fuzzy Inference System [124]Ilbahar, E.; Karasan, A.; Cebi, S.; Kahraman, C.2018Safety Science21954.8
Risk Evaluation Using a Novel Hybrid Method Based on FMEA, Extended MULTIMOORA, and AHP Methods Under Fuzzy Environment [125]Fattahi, R.; Khalilzadeh, M.2018Safety Science17142.8
Construction Projects Selection and Risk Assessment by Fuzzy AHP and Fuzzy TOPSIS Methodologies [65]Taylan, O.; Bafail, A.O.; Abdulaal, R.M.S.; Kabli, M.R.2014Applied Soft Computing30337.9
Fuzzy Failure Modes and Effects Analysis by Using Fuzzy TOPSIS-based Fuzzy AHP [61]Kutlu, A.C.; Ekmekcioglu, M.2012Expert Systems with Applications34334.3
Fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS Approaches to Prioritizing Solutions for Reverse Logistics Barriers [126]Sirisawat, P.; Kiatcharoenpol, T.2018Computers & Industrial Engineering13333.3
Risk Analysis in Green Supply Chain Using Fuzzy AHP Approach: A case study [25]Mangla, S.K.; Kumar, P.; Barua, M.K.2015Resources Conservation and Recycling22832.6
A State-of the-art Survey & Testbed of Fuzzy AHP (FAHP) Applications [127]Kubler, S.; Robert, J.; Derigent, W.; Voisin, A.; Le Traon, Y.2016Expert Systems with Applications18931.5
Operation Patterns Analysis of Automotive Components Remanufacturing Industry Development in China [101]Tian, G.D.; Zhang, H.H.; Feng, Y.X.; Jia, H.F.; Zhang, C.Y.; Jiang, Z.G.; Li, Z.W.; Li, P.G.2017Journal of Cleaner Production14328.6
A Novel Approach for Failure Mode and Effects Analysis Using Combination Weighting and Fuzzy VIKOR Method [102]Liu, H.C.; You, J.X.; You, X.Y.; Shan, M.M.2015Applied Soft Computing18626.6
A Combined Multi-criteria Approach to Support FMECA Analyses: A real-world case [103]Carpitella, S.; Certa, A.; Izquierdo, J.; La Fata, C.M.2018Reliability Engineering & System Safety10526.3
Integration of AHP-TOPSIS Method for Prioritizing the Solutions of Reverse Logistics Adoption to Overcome its Barriers Under Fuzzy Environment [104]Prakash, C.; Barua, M.K.2015Journal of Manufacturing Systems18326.1
A Fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS Framework for Ranking the Solutions of Knowledge Management Adoption in Supply Chain to Overcome its Barriers [105]Patil, S.K.; Kant, R.2014Expert Systems with Applications20425.5
An Extended VIKOR Method ased on Entropy Measure for the Failure Modes Risk Assessment—A case study of the geothermal power plant (GPP) [106]Mohsen, O.; Fereshteh, N.2017Safety Science12024.0
A Combined Fuzzy AHP and Fuzzy TOPSIS Based Strategic Analysis of Electronic Service Quality in Healthcare Industry [158]Buyukozkan, G.; Cifci, G.2012Expert Systems with Applications23523.5
A New Approximation for Risk Assessment Using the AHP and Fine Kinney Methodologies [108]Kokangul, A.; Polat, U.; Dagsuyu, C.2017Safety Science11723.4
Analyzing the Drivers of Green Manufacturing with Fuzzy Approach [109]Govindan, K.; Diabat, A.; Shankar, K.M.2015Journal of Cleaner Production15422.0
Assessment of Regions Priority for Implementation of Solar Projects in Iran: New application of a hybrid multi-criteria decision making approach [110]Vafaeipour, M.; Hashemkhani Zolfani, S.; Varzandeh, M.H.M.; Derakhti, A.; Eshkalag, M.K.2014Energy Conversion and Management17321.6
Fuzzy AHP to Determine the Relative Weights of Evaluation Criteria and Fuzzy TOPSIS to Rank the Alternatives [111]Torfi, F.; Farahani, R.Z.; Rezapour, S.2010Applied Soft Computing23919.9
A Framework for Water Loss Management in Developing Countries Under Fuzzy Environment: Integration of Fuzzy AHP with Fuzzy TOPSIS [112]Zyoud, S.H.; Kaufmann, L.G.; Shaheen, H.; Samhan, S.; Fuchs-Hanusch, D.2016Expert Systems with Applications11919.8
Measuring Operational Performance of OSH Management System—A demonstration of AHP-based selection of leading key performance indicators [113]Podgorski, D.2015Safety Science12517.9
Interrelationships of Risks Faced by Third Party Logistics Service Providers: A DEMATEL based approach [114]Govindan, K.; Chaudhuri, A.2016Transportation Research Part E-logistics and Transportation Review10717.8
Quantifying Risks in a Supply Chain Through Integration of Fuzzy AHP and Fuzzy TOPSIS [115]Samvedi, A.; Jain, V.; Chan, F.T.S.2013International Journal of Production Research15517.2
Landfill Site Selection Using Fuzzy AHP and Fuzzy TOPSIS: A case study for Istanbul [22]Beskese, A.; Demir, H.H.; Ozcan, H.K.; Okten, H.E.2015Environmental Earth Sciences11516.4
Decision Making on Business Issues with Foresight Perspective; An application of new hybrid MCDM model in shopping mall locating [116]Hashemkhani Zolfani, S.; Aghdaie, M.H.; Derakhti, A.; Zavadskas, E.K.; Varzandeh, M.H.M.2013Expert Systems with Applications14716.3
A Two-stage Fuzzy AHP Model for Risk Assessment of Implementing Green Initiatives in the Fashion Supply Chain [117]Wang, X.J.; Chan, H.K.; Yee, R.W.Y.; Diaz-Rainey, I.2012International Journal of Production Economics16016.0
Selection of the Strategic Alliance Partner in Logistics Value Chain [107]Buyukozkan, G.; Feyzioglu, O.; Nebol, E.2008International Journal of Production Economics22416.0
Risk Management in the Construction Industry Using Combined Fuzzy FMEA and Fuzzy AHP [118]Abdelgawad, M.; Fayek, A.R.2010Journal of Construction Engineering and Management16113.4
Strategic Logistics Outsourcing: An integrated QFD and fuzzy AHP approach [119]Ho, W.; He, T.; Lee, C.K.M.; Emrouznejad, A.2012Expert Systems with Applications10810.8
A Decision Support System for Selecting Convenience Store Location Through Integration of Fuzzy AHP and Artificial Neural Network [120]Kuo, R.J.; Chi, S.C.; Kao, S.S.2002Computers in Industry20010.0
A Combined Fuzzy MCDM Approach for Selecting Shopping Center Site: An example from Istanbul, Turkey [121]Onut, S.; Efendigil, T.; Kara, S.S.2010Expert Systems with Applications1149.5
An Assessment of Exploiting Renewable Energy Sources with Concerns of Policy and Technology [122]Shen, Y.C.; Lin, G.T.R.; Li, K.P.; Yuan, B.J.C.2010Energy Policy1028.5
Source: Authors’ elaboration.
Table A3. Articles included in Cluster 3 sorted by NIY.
Table A3. Articles included in Cluster 3 sorted by NIY.
Article TitleAuthorsYearJournalCitesNIY
Multi-tier Sustainable Global Supplier Selection Using a Fuzzy AHP-VIKOR Based Approach [140]Awasthi, A.; Govindan, K.; Gold, S.2018International Journal of Production Economics23358.3
A Comparison Between Fuzzy AHP and Fuzzy TOPSIS Methods to Supplier Selection [64]Lima, F.R.; Osiro, L.; Carpinetti, L.C.R.2014Applied Soft Computing43254.0
Integrated Analytic Hierarchy Process and its Applications—A literature review [15]Ho, W.2008European Journal of Operational Research55239.4
Supplier Selection Using Fuzzy AHP and Fuzzy Multi-objective Linear Programming for Developing Low Carbon Supply Chain [49]Shaw, K.; Shankar, R.; Yadav, S.S.; Thakur, L.S.2012Expert Systems with Applications36936.9
Integrating Sustainability into Strategic Decision-making: A fuzzy AHP method for the selection of relevant sustainability issues [141]Calabrese, A.; Costa, R.; Levialdi, N.; Menichini, T.2019Technological Forecasting and Social Change10535.0
An Integrated Decision Support System based on ANN and Fuzzy_AHP for Heart Failure Risk Prediction [31]Samuel, O.W.; Asogbon, G.M.; Sangaiah, A.K.; Fang, P.; Li, G.L.2017Expert Systems with Applications15831.6
Global Supplier Selection: A fuzzy AHP approach [50]Chan, F.T.S.; Kumar, N.; Tiwari, M.K.; Lau, H.C.W.; Choy, K.L.2008International Journal of Production Research38927.8
Supplier Selection Using Fuzzy AHP and TOPSIS: A case study in the Indian automotive industry [142]Jain, V.; Sangaiah, A.K.; Sakhuja, S.; Thoduka, N.; Aggarwal, R.2018Neural Computing & Applications10726.8
An STEEP-fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS Framework for Evaluation and Selection of Thermal Power Plant Location: A case study from India [128]Choudhary, D.; Shankar, R.2012Energy25125.1
Comprehensive Flood Risk Assessment Based on Set Pair Analysis-variable Fuzzy Sets Model and Fuzz AHP [129]Zou, Q.; Zhou, J.Z.; Zhou, C.; Song, L.X.; Guo, J.2013Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment20923.2
The Analytic Hierarchy Process and Analytic Network Process: An overview of applications [20]Sipahi, S.; Timor, M.2010Management Decision26922.4
Application of a Trapezoidal Fuzzy AHP Method for Work Safety Evaluation and Early Warning Rating of Hot and Humid Environments [130]Zheng, G.Z.; Zhu, N.; Tian, Z.; Chen, Y.; Sun, B.H.2012Safety Science22222.2
Fuzzy AHP Approach for Supplier Selection in a Washing Machine Company [28]Kilincci, O.; Onal, S.A.2011Expert Systems with Applications23521.4
Multi-criteria Evaluation Model for the Selection of Sustainable Materials for Building Projects [131]Akadiri, P.O.; Olomolaiye, P.O.; Chinyio, E.A.2013Automation in Construction18020.0
A Combined Methodology for Supplier Selection and Performance Evaluation [132]Zeydan, M.; Colpan, C.; Cobanoglu, C.2011Expert Systems with Applications17415.8
Multi-criteria Supplier Segmentation Using a Fuzzy Preference Relations Based AHP [134]Rezaei, J.; Ortt, R.2013European Journal of Operational Research12313.7
Supplier Selection in the Airline Retail Industry Using a Funnel Methodology: Conjunctive screening method and fuzzy AHPRezaei, J.; Fahim, P.B.M.; Tavasszy, L.2014Expert Systems with Applications10913.6
Simulation Based Fuzzy TOPSIS Approach for Group Multi-criteria Supplier Selection Problem [133]Zouggari, A.; Benyoucef, L.2012Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence13413.4
Supplier Selection in Electronic Marketplaces Using Satisficing and Fuzzy AHP [136]Chamodrakas, I.; Batis, D.; Martakos, D.2010Expert Systems with Applications15112.6
An Integrated Fuzzy Multi-criteria Group Decision-making Approach for Green Supplier Evaluation [137]Buyukozkan, G.2012International Journal of Production Research11211.2
An Application of Fuzzy AHP for Evaluating Course Website Quality [138]Lin, H.F.2010Computers & Education13110.9
Fuzzy Analytical Hierarchy Process for Evaluating and Selecting a Vendor in a Supply Chain Model [139]Haq, A.N.; Kannan, G.2006International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology1519.4
Source: Authors’ elaboration.
Table A4. Articles included in Cluster 4 sorted by NIY.
Table A4. Articles included in Cluster 4 sorted by NIY.
Article TitleAuthorsYearJournalCitesNIY
Barriers to Effective Circular Supply Chain Management in a Developing Country Context [144]Mangla, S.K.; Luthra, S.; Mishra, N.; Singh, A.; Rana, N.P.; Dora, M.; Dwivedi, Y.2018Production Planning & Control15939.8
A Fuzzy AHP and BSC Approach for Evaluating Performance of IT Department in the Manufacturing Industry in Taiwan [52]Lee, A.H.I.; Chen, W.C.; Chang, C.J.2008Expert Systems with Applications32823.4
An Integrated Intuitionistic Fuzzy AHP and SWOT Method for Outsourcing Reverse Logistics [145]Tavana, M.; Zareinejad, M.; Di Caprio, D.; Kaviani, M.A.2016Applied Soft Computing11819.7
A Hybrid Model Based on Fuzzy AHP and Fuzzy WASPAS for Construction Site Selection [146]Turskis, Z.; Zavadskas, E.K.; Antucheviciene, J.; Kosareva, N.2015International Journal of Computers Communications & Control12618.0
Integration of Fuzzy AHP and Interval Type-2 fuzzy DEMATEL: An application to human resource managementAbdullah, L.; Zulkifli, N.2015Expert Systems with Applications12317.6
Strategic Analysis of Healthcare Service Quality Using Fuzzy AHP Methodology [147]Buyukozkan, G.; Cifci, G.; Guleryuz, S.2011Expert Systems with Applications18817.1
Combining Grey Relation and TOPSIS Concepts for Selecting an Expatriate Host Country [67]Chen, M.F.; Tzeng, G.H.2004Mathematical and Computer Modelling27515.3
A Framework for Measuring the Performance of Service Supply Chain Management [149]Cho, D.W.; Lee, Y.H.; Ahn, S.H.; Hwang, M.K.2012Computers & Industrial Engineering15115.1
Evaluating Alternative Production Cycles Using the Extended Fuzzy AHP Method [150]Weck, M.; Klocke, F.; Schell, H.; Ruenauver, E.1997European Journal of Operational Research1194.8
Source: Authors’ elaboration.
Table A5. Articles included in Cluster 5 sorted by NIY.
Table A5. Articles included in Cluster 5 sorted by NIY.
Article TitleAuthorsYearJournalCitesNIY
Applications of the Extent Analysis Method on Fuzzy AHP [48]Chang, D.Y.1996European Journal of Operational Research243693.7
Using Fuzzy AHP to Manage Intellectual Capital Assets: An application to the ICT service industry [143]Calabrese, A.; Costa, R.; Menichini, T.2013Expert Systems with Applications14516.1
Applying Fuzzy Linguistic Preference Relations to the Improvement of consistency of Fuzzy AHP [151]Wang, T.C.; Chen, Y.H.2008Information Sciences21915.6
Green Supply Chain Management in the Electronic Industry [152]Hsu, C.W.; Hu, A.H.2008International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology15110.8
Evaluating Naval Tactical Missile Systems by Fuzzy AHP Based on the Grade Value of Membership Function [24]Cheng, C.H.1997European Journal of Operational Research25410.2
Risk Evaluation of Green Components to Hazardous Substance Using FMEA and FAHP [153]Hu, A.H.; Hsu, C.W.; Kuo, T.C.; Wu, W.C.2009Expert Systems with Applications1199.2
Evaluating Weapon System Using Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process-Based on Entropy Weight [154]Mon, D.L.; Cheng, C.H.; Lin, J.C.1994Fuzzy Sets and Systems1896.8
Source: Authors’ elaboration.
Table A6. Articles included in Cluster 6 sorted by NIY.
Table A6. Articles included in Cluster 6 sorted by NIY.
Article TitleAuthorsYearJournalCitesNIY
A Performance Evaluation Model by Integrating Fuzzy AHP and Fuzzy TOPSIS Methods [66]Sun, C.C.2010Expert Systems with Applications37231.0
The Application of Fuzzy Delphi Method and Fuzzy AHP in Lubricant Regenerative Technology Selection [155]Hsu, Y.L.; Lee, C.H.; Kreng, V.B.2010Expert Systems with Applications23619.7
An Integrated Fuzzy AHP-ELECTRE Methodology for Environmental Impact Assessment [156]Kaya, T.; Kahraman, C.2011Expert Systems with Applications13712.5
Evaluating the Criteria for Human Resource for Science and Technology (HRST) Based on an Integrated Fuzzy AHP and Fuzzy DEMATEL Approach [157]Chou, Y.C.; Sun, C.C.; Yen, H.Y.2012Applied Soft Computing11011.0
Source: Authors’ elaboration.

Appendix B. Summary of Fuzzy Sets Applied in Fuzzy AHP and Articles That Hybridize and/or Compare Fuzzy AHP with Other MCDM Methodologies

Table A7. Summary of fuzzy sets fuzzy sets applied in fuzzy AHP.
Table A7. Summary of fuzzy sets fuzzy sets applied in fuzzy AHP.
Fuzzy SetApproach
Triangular Fuzzy Numbers
TFN
[48,50,54,55,58,62,66,69,86,91,93,138,147]
Trapezoidal Fuzzy Number
TraFN
[129,130]
Trapezoidal interval tope-2 fuzzy set[159,160]
Intuitionistic fuzzy set[22,61,63,64,65,66,67,77,84,104,105,107,111,112,115,121,126,127,128,135,158]
Table A8. Articles that hybridize and/or compare the fuzzy AHP methodology with other MCDM methodologies.
Table A8. Articles that hybridize and/or compare the fuzzy AHP methodology with other MCDM methodologies.
MethodApproach
Fuzzy TOPSIS[61,64,65,66,77,111,158]
Fuzzy Delphi[149,155]
Fuzzy AHP—VIKOR[102,140,161,162]
Pythagorean fuzzy AHP & fuzzy inference system[124]
Fuzzy AHP and artificial neural network[120]

References

  1. Mack, O.; Khare, A.; Krämer, A.; Burgartz, T. Managing in a VUCA World; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2015; ISBN 9783319168890. [Google Scholar]
  2. Gao, Y.; Feng, Z.; Zhang, S. Managing supply chain resilience in the era of VUCA. Front. Eng. Manag. 2021, 8, 465–470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Kuusisto, E. Approaching VUCA Environment with Enterprise Agility in Government Organization: Case Business Finland and COVID-19. Master’s Thesis, University of Vaasa, Vaasa, Finland, 2022. Available online: https://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi-fe2022042931570 (accessed on 1 July 2022).
  4. Bennett, N.; Lemoine, G.J. What a difference a word makes: Understanding threats to performance in a VUCA world. Bus. Horizons 2014, 57, 311–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Schoemaker, P.J.H.; Heaton, S.; Teece, D. Innovation, Dynamic Capabilities, and Leadership. Calif. Manag. Rev. 2018, 61, 15–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Lepeley, M.-T. Soft skills for human centered management and global sustainability. In Management in the Global VUCA Environment; Lepeley, M.T., Beutell, N.J., Abarca, N., Mailuf, N., Eds.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2021; ISBN 9781003094463. [Google Scholar]
  7. Safian, M.; Ezwan, E.; Hadi, A. The evolution of Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) as a decision making tool in property sectors. Int. Proc. Econ. Dev. Res. 2011, 6, 28. [Google Scholar]
  8. Saaty, R.W. The analytic hierarchy process—What it is and how it is used. Math. Model. 1987, 9, 161–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Saaty, T.L. What is the analytic hierarchy process? In Mathematical Models for Decision Support; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1988; pp. 109–121. [Google Scholar]
  10. Liu, Y.; Eckert, C.M.; Earl, C. A review of fuzzy AHP methods for decision-making with subjective judgements. Expert Syst. Appl. 2020, 161, 113738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Tesfamariam, S.; Sadiq, R. Risk-based environmental decision-making using fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (F-AHP). Stoch. Hydrol. Hydraul. 2006, 21, 35–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Ho, W.; Ma, X. The state-of-the-art integrations and applications of the analytic hierarchy process. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2018, 267, 399–414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Zadeh, L. A fuzzy-algorithmic approach to the definition of complex or imprecise concepts. Int. J. Man-Mach. Stud. 1976, 8, 249–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Zadeh, L.A. Information and control. Fuzzy Sets 1965, 8, 338–353. [Google Scholar]
  15. Ho, W. Integrated analytic hierarchy process and its applications—A literature review. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2008, 186, 211–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Fiss, P.C. Building Better Causal Theories: A Fuzzy Set Approach to Typologies in Organization Research. Acad. Manag. J. 2011, 54, 393–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Xu, Z.; Liao, H. Intuitionistic Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process. IEEE Trans. Fuzzy Syst. 2013, 22, 749–761. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Abdullah, L.; Jaafar, S.; Taib, I. Intuitionistic Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process Approach in Ranking of Human Capital Indicators. J. Appl. Sci. 2013, 13, 423–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Tan, R.; Aviso, K.; Huelgas, A.; Promentilla, M. Fuzzy AHP approach to selection problems in process engineering involving quantitative and qualitative aspects. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 2013, 92, 467–475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Sipahi, S.; Timor, M. The analytic hierarchy process and analytic network process: An overview of applications. Manag. Decis. 2010, 48, 775–808. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Ayodele, T.; Ogunjuyigbe, A.; Odigie, O.; Munda, J. A multi-criteria GIS based model for wind farm site selection using interval type-2 fuzzy analytic hierarchy process: The case study of Nigeria. Appl. Energy 2018, 228, 1853–1869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Beskese, A.; Demir, H.H.; Ozcan, H.K.; Ökten, H. Landfill site selection using fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS: A case study for Istanbul. Environ. Earth Sci. 2014, 73, 3513–3521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Abbasi, S.; Sarabadan, S. Evaluating Tactical Missile Systems by Using Fuzzy AHP and TOPSIS Technique. J. Mil. Inf. Sci. 2015, 3, 28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Cheng, C.-H. Evaluating naval tactical missile systems by fuzzy AHP based on the grade value of membership function. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 1997, 96, 343–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Mangla, S.K.; Kumar, P.; Barua, M.K. Risk analysis in green supply chain using fuzzy AHP approach: A case study. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2015, 104, 375–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Kahraman, C.; Kaya, I.; Cebi, S. A comparative analysis for multiattribute selection among renewable energy alternatives using fuzzy axiomatic design and fuzzy analytic hierarchy process. Energy 2009, 34, 1603–1616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Ren, J.; Ren, X. Sustainability ranking of energy storage technologies under uncertainties. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 170, 1387–1398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Kilincci, O.; Onal, S.A. Fuzzy AHP approach for supplier selection in a washing machine company. Expert Syst. Appl. 2011, 38, 9656–9664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Fouladgar, M.M.; Yazdani-Chamzini, A.; Zavadskas, E.K. An integrated model for prioritizing strategies of the iranian mining sector: Irano kasybos sektoriaus strategijų prioriteto nustatymo integruotas modelis. Technol. Econ. Dev. Econ. 2011, 17, 459–483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Yu, C.; Shao, Y.; Wang, K.; Zhang, L. A group decision making sustainable supplier selection approach using extended TOPSIS under interval-valued Pythagorean fuzzy environment. Expert Syst. Appl. 2019, 121, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Samuel, O.W.; Asogbon, G.M.; Sangaiah, A.K.; Fang, P.; Li, G. An integrated decision support system based on ANN and Fuzzy_AHP for heart failure risk prediction. Expert Syst. Appl. 2016, 68, 163–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Yepes-Nuñez, J.J.; Urrutia, G.; Romero-Garcia, M.; Alonso-Fernandez, S. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Rev. Esp. Cardiol. (Engl. Ed.) 2021, 74, 790–799. [Google Scholar]
  33. Tavares Thomé, A.M.T.; Scavarda, L.F.; Scavarda, A.J. Conducting systematic literature review in operations management. Prod. Plan. Control. 2016, 27, 408–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Zupic, I.; Čater, T. Bibliometric methods in management and organization. Organ. Res. Methods 2015, 18, 429–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Bartol, T.; Budimir, G.; Dekleva-Smrekar, D.; Pusnik, M.; Južnič, P. Assessment of research fields in Scopus and Web of Science in the view of national research evaluation in Slovenia. Scientometrics 2013, 98, 1491–1504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Vieira, E.S.; Gomes, J.A.N.F. A comparison of Scopus and Web of Science for a typical university. Scientometrics 2009, 81, 587–600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Bakkalbasi, N.; Bauer, K.; Glover, J.; Wang, L. Three options for citation tracking: Google Scholar, Scopus and Web of Science. Biomed. Digit. Libr. 2006, 3, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Franceschini, F.; Maisano, D.; Mastrogiacomo, L. Empirical analysis and classification of database errors in Scopus and Web of Science. J. Inf. 2016, 10, 933–953. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. AlRyalat, S.A.S.; Malkawi, L.W.; Momani, S.M. Comparing Bibliometric Analysis Using PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science Databases. J. Vis. Exp. 2019, 152, e58494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Yang, K.; Meho, L.I. Citation Analysis: A Comparison of Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science. Proc. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 2007, 43, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Martín-Martín, A.; Thelwall, M.; Orduna-Malea, E.; Delgado López-Cózar, E. Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Scopus, Dimensions, Web of Science, and OpenCitations’ COCI: A multidisciplinary comparison of coverage via citations. Scientometrics 2021, 126, 871–906. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Van Eck, N.J.; Waltman, L. Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics 2010, 84, 523–538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  43. Castelló-Sirvent, F. A Fuzzy-Set Qualitative Comparative Analysis of Publications on the Fuzzy Sets Theory. Mathematics 2022, 10, 1322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Garrido-Ruso, M.; Aibar-Guzmán, B.; Monteiro, A.P. Businesses’ Role in the Fulfillment of the 2030 Agenda: A Bibliometric Analysis. Sustainability 2022, 14, 8754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Bai, Y.; Li, H.; Liu, Y. Visualizing research trends and research theme evolution in E-learning field: 1999–2018. Scientometrics 2020, 126, 1389–1414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Kocak, M.; García-Zorita, C.; Marugán-Lázaro, S.; Çakır, M.P.; Sanz-Casado, E. Mapping and clustering analysis on neuroscience literature in Turkey: A bibliometric analysis from 2000 to 2017. Scientometrics 2019, 121, 1339–1366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Castelló-Sirvent, F.; Roger-Monzó, V. Research agenda on turnaround strategies beyond systemic disruptions. J. Organ. Chang. Manag. 2022; ahead-of-print. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Chang, D.-Y. Applications of the extent analysis method on fuzzy AHP. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 1996, 95, 649–655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Shaw, K.; Shankar, R.; Yadav, S.S.; Thakur, L.S. Supplier selection using fuzzy AHP and fuzzy multi-objective linear programming for developing low carbon supply chain. Expert Syst. Appl. 2012, 39, 8182–8192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Chan, F.T.S.; Kumar, N.; Tiwari, M.K.; Lau, H.C.W.; Choy, K.L. Global supplier selection: A fuzzy-AHP approach. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2008, 46, 3825–3857. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Luthra, S.; Govindan, K.; Kannan, D.; Mangla, S.K.; Garg, C.P. An integrated framework for sustainable supplier selection and evaluation in supply chains. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 140, 1686–1698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Lee, A.H.; Chen, W.-C.; Chang, C.-J. A fuzzy AHP and BSC approach for evaluating performance of IT department in the manufacturing industry in Taiwan. Expert Syst. Appl. 2008, 34, 96–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Wang, L.; Chu, J.; Wu, J. Selection of optimum maintenance strategies based on a fuzzy analytic hierarchy process. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2007, 107, 151–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Dağdeviren, M.; Yüksel, I. Developing a fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (AHP) model for behavior-based safety management. Inf. Sci. 2008, 178, 1717–1733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Kahraman, C.; Cebeci, U.; Ruan, D. Multi-attribute comparison of catering service companies using fuzzy AHP: The case of Turkey. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2004, 87, 171–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Bozbura, F.; Beskese, A.; Kahraman, C. Prioritization of human capital measurement indicators using fuzzy AHP. Expert Syst. Appl. 2007, 32, 1100–1112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Kwong, C.K.; Bai, H. A fuzzy AHP approach to the determination of importance weights of customer requirements in quality function deployment. J. Intell. Manuf. 2002, 13, 367–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Kwong, C.; Bai, H. Determining the Importance Weights for the Customer Requirements in QFD Using a Fuzzy AHP with an Extent Analysis Approach. IIE Trans. 2003, 35, 619–626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Zhu, K.-J.; Jing, Y.; Chang, D.-Y. A discussion on Extent Analysis Method and applications of fuzzy AHP. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 1999, 116, 450–456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Leung, L.; Cao, D. On consistency and ranking of alternatives in fuzzy AHP. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2000, 124, 102–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Kutlu, A.C.; Ekmekçioğlu, M. Fuzzy failure modes and effects analysis by using fuzzy TOPSIS-based fuzzy AHP. Expert Syst. Appl. 2012, 39, 61–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Wang, Y.-M.; Luo, Y.; Hua, Z. On the extent analysis method for fuzzy AHP and its applications. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2008, 186, 735–747. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Gumus, A.T. Evaluation of hazardous waste transportation firms by using a two step fuzzy-AHP and TOPSIS methodology. Expert Syst. Appl. 2009, 36, 4067–4074. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Junior, F.R.L.; Osiro, L.; Carpinetti, L.C.R. A comparison between Fuzzy AHP and Fuzzy TOPSIS methods to supplier selection. Appl. Soft Comput. 2014, 21, 194–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Taylan, O.; Bafail, A.O.; Abdulaal, R.M.; Kabli, M.R. Construction projects selection and risk assessment by fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS methodologies. Appl. Soft Comput. 2014, 17, 105–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Sun, C.-C. A performance evaluation model by integrating fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS methods. Expert Syst. Appl. 2010, 37, 7745–7754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Chen, M.-F.; Tzeng, G.-H. Combining grey relation and TOPSIS concepts for selecting an expatriate host country. Math. Comput. Model. 2004, 40, 1473–1490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Kulak, O.; Kahraman, C. Fuzzy multi-attribute selection among transportation companies using axiomatic design and analytic hierarchy process. Inf. Sci. 2005, 170, 191–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Lyu, H.-M.; Sun, W.-J.; Shen, S.-L.; Zhou, A.-N. Risk Assessment Using a New Consulting Process in Fuzzy AHP. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2020, 146, 04019112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Gündoğdu, F.K.; Kahraman, C. A novel spherical fuzzy analytic hierarchy process and its renewable energy application. Soft Comput. 2019, 24, 4607–4621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Kahraman, C.; Öztayşi, B.; Sarı, I.U.; Turanoğlu, E. Fuzzy analytic hierarchy process with interval type-2 fuzzy sets. Knowledge-Based Syst. 2014, 59, 48–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Chen, J.-F.; Hsieh, H.-N.; Do, Q.H. Evaluating teaching performance based on fuzzy AHP and comprehensive evaluation approach. Appl. Soft Comput. 2015, 28, 100–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Mosadeghi, R.; Warnken, J.; Tomlinson, R.; Mirfenderesk, H. Comparison of Fuzzy-AHP and AHP in a spatial multi-criteria decision making model for urban land-use planning. Comput. Environ. Urban Syst. 2015, 49, 54–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  74. Feizizadeh, B.; Roodposhti, M.S.; Jankowski, P.; Blaschke, T. A GIS-based extended fuzzy multi-criteria evaluation for landslide susceptibility mapping. Comput. Geosci. 2014, 73, 208–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  75. Papaioannou, G.; Vasiliades, L.; Loukas, A. Multi-Criteria Analysis Framework for Potential Flood Prone Areas Mapping. Water Resour. Manag. 2015, 29, 399–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Firouz, M.H.; Ghadimi, N. Optimal preventive maintenance policy for electric power distribution systems based on the fuzzy AHP methods. Complexity 2016, 21, 70–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Ertuğrul, I.; Karakaşoğlu, N. Comparison of fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS methods for facility location selection. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2008, 39, 783–795. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Vahidnia, M.H.; Alesheikh, A.A.; Alimohammadi, A. Hospital site selection using fuzzy AHP and its derivatives. J. Environ. Manag. 2009, 90, 3048–3056. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Huang, C.-C.; Chu, P.-Y.; Chiang, Y.-H. A fuzzy AHP application in government-sponsored R&D project selection. Omega 2008, 36, 1038–1052. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Güngör, Z.; Serhadlıoğlu, G.; Kesen, S.E. A fuzzy AHP approach to personnel selection problem. Appl. Soft Comput. 2009, 9, 641–646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Cebeci, U. Fuzzy AHP-based decision support system for selecting ERP systems in textile industry by using balanced scorecard. Expert Syst. Appl. 2009, 36, 8900–8909. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Saaty, T.L.; Tran, L.T. On the invalidity of fuzzifying numerical judgments in the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Math. Comput. Model. 2007, 46, 962–975. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Sevkli, M.; Oztekin, A.; Uysal, O.; Torlak, G.; Turkyilmaz, A.; Delen, D. Development of a fuzzy ANP based SWOT analysis for the airline industry in Turkey. Expert Syst. Appl. 2012, 39, 14–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Onar, S.C.; Oztaysi, B.; Kahraman, C. Strategic Decision Selection Using Hesitant fuzzy TOPSIS and Interval Type-2 Fuzzy AHP: A case study. Int. J. Comput. Intell. Syst. 2014, 7, 1002–1021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  85. Wang, Y.; Jung, K.-A.; Yeo, G.-T.; Chou, C.-C. Selecting a cruise port of call location using the fuzzy-AHP method: A case study in East Asia. Tour. Manag. 2014, 42, 262–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Pan, N.-F. Fuzzy AHP approach for selecting the suitable bridge construction method. Autom. Constr. 2008, 17, 958–965. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Ayağ, Z.; Özdemir, R.G. A Fuzzy AHP Approach to Evaluating Machine Tool Alternatives. J. Intell. Manuf. 2006, 17, 179–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Wang, Y.-M.; Chin, K.-S. Fuzzy analytic hierarchy process: A logarithmic fuzzy preference programming methodology. Int. J. Approx. Reason. 2011, 52, 541–553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  89. Durán, O.; Aguilo, J. Computer-aided machine-tool selection based on a Fuzzy-AHP approach. Expert Syst. Appl. 2008, 34, 1787–1794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Javanbarg, M.B.; Scawthorn, C.; Kiyono, J.; Shahbodagh, B. Fuzzy AHP-based multicriteria decision making systems using particle swarm optimization. Expert Syst. Appl. 2012, 39, 960–966. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Tseng, M.-L.; Lin, Y.-H.; Chiu, A.S.F. Fuzzy AHP-based study of cleaner production implementation in Taiwan PWB manufacturer. J. Clean. Prod. 2009, 17, 1249–1256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Dehghanian, P.; Fotuhi-Firuzabad, M.; Bagheri-Shouraki, S.; Kazemi, A.A.R. Critical Component Identification in Reliability Centered Asset Management of Power Distribution Systems Via Fuzzy AHP. IEEE Syst. J. 2011, 6, 593–602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Yu, C.-S. A GP-AHP method for solving group decision-making fuzzy AHP problems. Comput. Oper. Res. 2002, 29, 1969–2001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Cakir, O.; Canbolat, M.S. A web-based decision support system for multi-criteria inventory classification using fuzzy AHP methodology. Expert Syst. Appl. 2008, 35, 1367–1378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Celik, M.; Er, I.D.; Ozok, A.F. Application of fuzzy extended AHP methodology on shipping registry selection: The case of Turkish maritime industry. Expert Syst. Appl. 2009, 36, 190–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Jaskowski, P.; Biruk, S.; Bucon, R. Assessing contractor selection criteria weights with fuzzy AHP method application in group decision environment. Autom. Constr. 2010, 19, 120–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Dağdeviren, M.; Yüksel, I.; Kurt, M. A fuzzy analytic network process (ANP) model to identify faulty behavior risk (FBR) in work system. Saf. Sci. 2008, 46, 771–783. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Ayağ, Z. A fuzzy AHP-based simulation approach to concept evaluation in a NPD environment. IIE Trans. 2005, 37, 827–842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Tolga, E.; Demircan, M.L.; Kahraman, C. Operating system selection using fuzzy replacement analysis and analytic hierarchy process. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2005, 97, 89–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Ertay, T.; Buyukozkan, G.; Kahraman, C.; Ruan, D. Quality function deployment implementation based on analytic network process with linguistic data: An application in automotive industry. J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst. 2005, 16, 221–232. [Google Scholar]
  101. Tian, G.; Zhang, H.; Feng, Y.; Jia, H.; Zhang, C.; Jiang, Z.; Li, Z.; Li, P. Operation patterns analysis of automotive components remanufacturing industry development in China. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 164, 1363–1375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Liu, H.-C.; You, J.-X.; You, X.-Y.; Shan, M.-M. A novel approach for failure mode and effects analysis using combination weighting and fuzzy VIKOR method. Appl. Soft Comput. 2015, 28, 579–588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Carpitella, S.; Certa, A.; Izquierdo, J.; La Fata, C.M. A combined multi-criteria approach to support FMECA analyses: A real-world case. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 2018, 169, 394–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  104. Prakash, C.; Barua, M. Integration of AHP-TOPSIS method for prioritizing the solutions of reverse logistics adoption to overcome its barriers under fuzzy environment. J. Manuf. Syst. 2015, 37, 599–615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Patil, S.K.; Kant, R. A fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS framework for ranking the solutions of Knowledge Management adoption in Supply Chain to overcome its barriers. Expert Syst. Appl. 2014, 41, 679–693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Mohsen, O.; Fereshteh, N. An extended VIKOR method based on entropy measure for the failure modes risk assessment—A case study of the geothermal power plant (GPP). Saf. Sci. 2017, 92, 160–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Büyüközkan, G.; Feyzioğlu, O.; Nebol, E. Selection of the strategic alliance partner in logistics value chain. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2008, 113, 148–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Kokangül, A.; Polat, U.; Dağsuyu, C. A new approximation for risk assessment using the AHP and Fine Kinney methodologies. Saf. Sci. 2017, 91, 24–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Govindan, K.; Diabat, A.; Shankar, K.M. Analyzing the drivers of green manufacturing with fuzzy approach. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 96, 182–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Vafaeipour, M.; Zolfani, S.H.; Varzandeh, M.H.M.; Derakhti, A.; Eshkalag, M.K. Assessment of regions priority for implementation of solar projects in Iran: New application of a hybrid multi-criteria decision making approach. Energy Convers. Manag. 2014, 86, 653–663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Torfi, F.; Farahani, R.Z.; Rezapour, S. Fuzzy AHP to determine the relative weights of evaluation criteria and Fuzzy TOPSIS to rank the alternatives. Appl. Soft Comput. 2010, 10, 520–528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Zyoud, S.H.; Kaufmann, L.G.; Shaheen, H.; Samhan, S.; Fuchs-Hanusch, D. A framework for water loss management in developing countries under fuzzy environment: Integration of Fuzzy AHP with Fuzzy TOPSIS. Expert Syst. Appl. 2016, 61, 86–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Podgórski, D. Measuring operational performance of OSH management system—A demonstration of AHP-based selection of leading key performance indicators. Saf. Sci. 2015, 73, 146–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  114. Govindan, K.; Chaudhuri, A. Interrelationships of risks faced by third party logistics service providers: A DEMATEL based approach. Transp. Res. Part E: Logist. Transp. Rev. 2016, 90, 177–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  115. Samvedi, A.; Jain, V.; Chan, F.T. Quantifying risks in a supply chain through integration of fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2013, 51, 2433–2442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Zolfani, S.H.; Aghdaie, M.H.; Derakhti, A.; Zavadskas, E.K.; Varzandeh, M.H.M. Decision making on business issues with foresight perspective; an application of new hybrid MCDM model in shopping mall locating. Expert Syst. Appl. 2013, 40, 7111–7121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Wang, X.; Chan, H.K.; Yee, R.W.; Diaz-Rainey, I. A two-stage fuzzy-AHP model for risk assessment of implementing green initiatives in the fashion supply chain. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2012, 135, 595–606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. AbdelGawad, M.; Fayek, A.R. Risk Management in the Construction Industry Using Combined Fuzzy FMEA and Fuzzy AHP. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2010, 136, 1028–1036. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Ho, W.; He, T.; Lee, C.K.M.; Emrouznejad, A. Strategic logistics outsourcing: An integrated QFD and fuzzy AHP approach. Expert Syst. Appl. 2012, 39, 10841–10850. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Kuo, R.; Chi, S.; Kao, S. A decision support system for selecting convenience store location through integration of fuzzy AHP and artificial neural network. Comput. Ind. 2002, 47, 199–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Önüt, S.; Efendigil, T.; Kara, S.S. A combined fuzzy MCDM approach for selecting shopping center site: An example from Istanbul, Turkey. Expert Syst. Appl. 2010, 37, 1973–1980. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Shen, Y.-C.; Lin, G.T.; Li, K.-P.; Yuan, B.J. An assessment of exploiting renewable energy sources with concerns of policy and technology. Energy Policy 2010, 38, 4604–4616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Wang, Y.; Xu, L.; Solangi, Y.A. Strategic Renewable Energy Resources Selection for Pakistan: Based on SWOT-Fuzzy AHP Approach. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2020, 52, 101861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Ilbahar, E.; Karaşan, A.; Cebi, S.; Kahraman, C. A novel approach to risk assessment for occupational health and safety using Pythagorean fuzzy AHP & fuzzy inference system. Saf. Sci. 2018, 103, 124–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Fattahi, R.; Khalilzadeh, M. Risk evaluation using a novel hybrid method based on FMEA, extended MULTIMOORA, and AHP methods under fuzzy environment. Saf. Sci. 2018, 102, 290–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Sirisawat, P.; Kiatcharoenpol, T. Fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS approaches to prioritizing solutions for reverse logistics barriers. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2018, 117, 303–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Kubler, S.; Robert, J.; Derigent, W.; Voisin, A.; Le Traon, Y. A state-of the-art survey & testbed of fuzzy AHP (FAHP) applications. Expert Syst. Appl. 2016, 65, 398–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Choudhary, D.; Shankar, R. An STEEP-fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS framework for evaluation and selection of thermal power plant location: A case study from India. Energy 2012, 42, 510–521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Zou, Q.; Zhou, J.; Zhou, C.; Song, L.; Guo, J. Comprehensive flood risk assessment based on set pair analysis-variable fuzzy sets model and fuzzy AHP. Stoch. Hydrol. Hydraul. 2012, 27, 525–546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Zheng, G.; Zhu, N.; Tian, Z.; Chen, Y.; Sun, B. Application of a trapezoidal fuzzy AHP method for work safety evaluation and early warning rating of hot and humid environments. Saf. Sci. 2012, 50, 228–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Akadiri, P.O.; Olomolaiye, P.O.; Chinyio, E.A. Multi-criteria evaluation model for the selection of sustainable materials for building projects. Autom. Constr. 2013, 30, 113–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Zeydan, M.; Çolpan, C.; Çobanoğlu, C. A combined methodology for supplier selection and performance evaluation. Expert Syst. Appl. 2011, 38, 2741–2751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Rezaei, J.; Fahim, P.B.; Tavasszy, L. Supplier selection in the airline retail industry using a funnel methodology: Conjunctive screening method and fuzzy AHP. Expert Syst. Appl. 2014, 41, 8165–8179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Rezaei, J.; Ortt, R. Multi-criteria supplier segmentation using a fuzzy preference relations based AHP. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2013, 225, 75–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Zouggari, A.; Benyoucef, L. Simulation based fuzzy TOPSIS approach for group multi-criteria supplier selection problem. Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 2012, 25, 507–519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Chamodrakas, I.; Batis, D.; Martakos, D. Supplier selection in electronic marketplaces using satisficing and fuzzy AHP. Expert Syst. Appl. 2009, 37, 490–498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Büyüközkan, G. An integrated fuzzy multi-criteria group decision-making approach for green supplier evaluation. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2012, 50, 2892–2909. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Lin, H.-F. An application of fuzzy AHP for evaluating course website quality. Comput. Educ. 2010, 54, 877–888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Haq, A.N.; Kannan, G. Fuzzy analytical hierarchy process for evaluating and selecting a vendor in a supply chain model. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2005, 29, 826–835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Awasthi, A.; Govindan, K.; Gold, S. Multi-tier sustainable global supplier selection using a fuzzy AHP-VIKOR based approach. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2018, 195, 106–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  141. Calabrese, A.; Costa, R.; Levialdi, N.; Menichini, T. Integrating sustainability into strategic decision-making: A fuzzy AHP method for the selection of relevant sustainability issues. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2018, 139, 155–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Jain, V.; Sangaiah, A.K.; Sakhuja, S.; Thoduka, N.; Aggarwal, R. Supplier selection using fuzzy AHP and TOPSIS: A case study in the Indian automotive industry. Neural Comput. Appl. 2016, 29, 555–564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Calabrese, A.; Costa, R.; Menichini, T. Using Fuzzy AHP to manage Intellectual Capital assets: An application to the ICT service industry. Expert Syst. Appl. 2013, 40, 3747–3755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  144. Mangla, S.K.; Luthra, S.; Mishra, N.; Singh, A.; Rana, N.P.; Dora, M.; Dwivedi, Y. Barriers to effective circular supply chain management in a developing country context. Prod. Plan. Control 2018, 29, 551–569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  145. Tavana, M.; Zareinejad, M.; Di Caprio, D.; Kaviani, M.A. An integrated intuitionistic fuzzy AHP and SWOT method for outsourcing reverse logistics. Appl. Soft Comput. 2016, 40, 544–557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Turskis, Z.; Zavadskas, E.K.; Antucheviciene, J.; Kosareva, N. A Hybrid Model Based on Fuzzy AHP and Fuzzy WASPAS for Construction Site Selection. Int. J. Comput. Commun. Control. 2015, 10, 113–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  147. Abdullah, L.; Zulkifli, N. Integration of fuzzy AHP and interval type-2 fuzzy DEMATEL: An application to human resource management. Expert Syst. Appl. 2015, 42, 4397–4409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. Büyüközkan, G.; Çifçi, G.; Güleryüz, S. Strategic analysis of healthcare service quality using fuzzy AHP methodology. Expert Syst. Appl. 2011, 38, 9407–9424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  149. Cho, D.W.; Lee, Y.H.; Ahn, S.H.; Hwang, M.K. A framework for measuring the performance of service supply chain management. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2012, 62, 801–818. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. Weck, M.; Klocke, F.; Schell, H.; Rüenauver, E. Evaluating alternative production cycles using the extended fuzzy AHP method. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 1997, 100, 351–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  151. Wang, T.-C.; Chen, Y.-H. Applying fuzzy linguistic preference relations to the improvement of consistency of fuzzy AHP. Inf. Sci. 2008, 178, 3755–3765. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  152. Hsu, C.W.; Hu, A.H. Green supply chain management in the electronic industry. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2008, 5, 205–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  153. Hu, A.H.; Hsu, C.-W.; Kuo, T.-C.; Wu, W.-C. Risk evaluation of green components to hazardous substance using FMEA and FAHP. Expert Syst. Appl. 2009, 36, 7142–7147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  154. Mon, D.-L.; Cheng, C.-H.; Lin, J.-C. Evaluating weapon system using fuzzy analytic hierarchy process based on entropy weight. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 1994, 62, 127–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  155. Hsu, Y.-L.; Lee, C.-H.; Kreng, V. The application of Fuzzy Delphi Method and Fuzzy AHP in lubricant regenerative technology selection. Expert Syst. Appl. 2010, 37, 419–425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  156. Kaya, T.; Kahraman, C. An integrated fuzzy AHP–ELECTRE methodology for environmental impact assessment. Expert Syst. Appl. 2011, 38, 8553–8562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  157. Chou, Y.-C.; Sun, C.-C.; Yen, H.-Y. Evaluating the criteria for human resource for science and technology (HRST) based on an integrated fuzzy AHP and fuzzy DEMATEL approach. Appl. Soft Comput. 2012, 12, 64–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  158. Büyüközkan, G.; Çifçi, G. A combined fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS based strategic analysis of electronic service quality in healthcare industry. Expert Syst. Appl. 2012, 39, 2341–2354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  159. Alegoz, M.; Yapicioglu, H. Supplier selection and order allocation decisions under quantity discount and fast service options. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2019, 18, 179–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  160. Sen, B.; Hussain, S.A.I.; Das Gupta, A.; Gupta, M.K.; Pimenov, D.Y.; Mikołajczyk, T. Application of Type-2 Fuzzy AHP-ARAS for Selecting Optimal WEDM Parameters. Metals 2020, 11, 42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  161. Castelló-Sirvent, F.; Meneses-Eraso, C. Research Agenda on Multiple-Criteria Decision-Making: New Academic Debates in Business and Management. Axioms 2022, 11, 515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  162. Wang, B.; Song, J.; Ren, J.; Li, K.; Duan, H.; Wang, X. Selecting sustainable energy conversion technologies for agricultural residues: A fuzzy AHP-VIKOR based prioritization from life cycle perspective. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2018, 142, 78–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Systematic literature review strategy for bibliometric analysis.
Figure 1. Systematic literature review strategy for bibliometric analysis.
Axioms 11 00525 g001
Figure 2. Articles publication trend for the period 1994–2022.
Figure 2. Articles publication trend for the period 1994–2022.
Axioms 11 00525 g002
Figure 3. Academic efficiency map. Red: CpD > 30. Yellow: 20 < CpD < 30. Blue: 10 < CpD < 20. Black: CpD < 10. Source: Authors’ elaboration with AMCharts.
Figure 3. Academic efficiency map. Red: CpD > 30. Yellow: 20 < CpD < 30. Blue: 10 < CpD < 20. Black: CpD < 10. Source: Authors’ elaboration with AMCharts.
Axioms 11 00525 g003
Figure 4. International collaboration networks. Bibliographic coupling of countries. More than five citations per country.
Figure 4. International collaboration networks. Bibliographic coupling of countries. More than five citations per country.
Axioms 11 00525 g004
Figure 5. Bibliographic coupling of articles.
Figure 5. Bibliographic coupling of articles.
Axioms 11 00525 g005
Table 1. Top 25 Web of Science categories.
Table 1. Top 25 Web of Science categories.
Web of Science CategoriesRecord Count
Computer Science Artificial Intelligence391
Environmental Sciences326
Operations Research Management Science302
Green Sustainable Science Technology205
Computer Science Interdisciplinary Applications193
Engineering Industrial188
Engineering Electrical Electronic176
Environmental Studies144
Management142
Computer Science Information Systems131
Engineering Manufacturing131
Engineering Multidisciplinary112
Energy Fuels111
Engineering Environmental104
Engineering Civil103
Geosciences Multidisciplinary103
Water Resources84
Economics74
Business61
Computer Science Theory Methods56
Construction Building Technology54
Automation Control Systems53
Telecommunications52
Mathematics Interdisciplinary Applications50
Multidisciplinary Sciences47
Source: Authors’ elaboration.
Table 2. Top 25 Funding Agencies.
Table 2. Top 25 Funding Agencies.
Funding AgenciesRecord Count
National Natural Science Foundation of China173
Ministry of Science and Technology Taiwan39
Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities33
European Commission18
China Postdoctoral Science Foundation12
King Saud University12
National Basic Research Program of China11
Conselho Nacional De Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico10
National Key R D Program of China10
National Key Research and Development Program of China10
China Scholarship Council8
Spanish Government8
Turkiye Bilimsel Ve Teknolojik Arastirma Kurumu Tubitak8
Coordenacao de Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior Capes7
Ministry of Education Science Technological Development Serbia7
Ministry of Science and Technology China7
Yildiz Technical University7
Department of Science Technology India6
National High Technology Research and Development Program of China6
Specialized Research Fund for the Doctoral Program of Higher Education6
University of Tehran6
City University of Hong Kong5
Grant Agency of The Czech Republic5
National Natural Science Foundation of Guangdong Province5
National Science Foundation5
Source: Authors’ elaboration.
Table 3. Top 25 Journals by Articles.
Table 3. Top 25 Journals by Articles.
JournalArticlesFirst YearDpY
Expert Systems with Applications10520077.0
Sustainability88201512.6
Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems6620053.9
Journal of Cleaner Production6020094.6
Applied Soft Computing4320083.1
International Journal of Production Research4220062.6
Computers & Industrial Engineering3019991.3
Mathematical Problems in Engineering2620132.9
Soft Computing2620092.0
International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing2520061.6
IEEE Access2420198.0
Technological and Economic Development of Economy2420112.2
Journal of Multiple Valued Logic and Soft Computing2320081.6
Safety Science2120081.5
Environmental Science and Pollution Research1920142.4
Mathematics1920196.3
Annals of Operations Research1720184.3
International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making1720051.0
Energy1620081.1
Energies1520131.7
Environment Development and Sustainability1520195.0
Environmental Earth Sciences1520121.5
European Journal of Operational Research1519960.6
International Journal of Computatioal Intelligence Systems1520091.2
Tehnicki Vjesnik Technical Gazette1520111.4
Source: Authors’ elaboration.
Table 4. Top 25 Journals by Citations.
Table 4. Top 25 Journals by Citations.
JournalCitesFirst YearNIY Average
Expert Systems with Applications903420079.7
European Journal of Operational Research5110199618.5
Applied Soft Computing3076200811.6
Journal of Cleaner Production2505200911.7
International Journal of Production Research192720065.9
International Journal of Production Economics1770200418.7
Safety Science 1426200812.6
Computers & Industrial Engineering129719999.0
Information Sciences116020058.4
International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology100920064.1
Energy921200810.2
Sustainability85520153.9
Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing72020025.7
Technological and Economic Development of Economy65020114.6
Mathematical and Computer Modelling60720049.7
Automation in Construction573200810.7
Soft Computing56820099.7
Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems56220051.7
Resources Conservation and Recycling540201216.8
International Journal of Hydrogen Energy509200810.7
IIE Transactions460200312.5
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management453200711.3
Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment441200610.7
Production Planning & Control44020107.5
International Journal of Computational Intelligence Systems41520093.3
Source: Authors’ elaboration.
Table 6. Ranking of countries sorted by CpD. Countries with five or more published articles.
Table 6. Ranking of countries sorted by CpD. Countries with five or more published articles.
RankCountriesCpDArticlesCitesRankCountriesCpDArticlesCites
1Belgium82.8974528South Korea24.0571369
2Wales78.3647029France23.329676
3Denmark72.920145830South Africa23.05115
4Singapore44.91358431Portugal22.611249
5Germany39.11454732Switzerland21.05105
6Austria39.01246833Nigeria19.510195
7Lithuania39.034132534Sweden19.411213
8Chile36.6932935Vietnam18.829546
9England36.487316436Malaysia18.850939
10Japan35.32277737Hungary18.213236
11The Netherlands33.91240738Qatar18.07126
12Canada33.143142439Spain17.846818
13Taiwan32.5216702140Serbia17.7611078
14Turkey32.13981278841Bangladesh17.515262
15Scotland31.8619142Egypt16.38130
16Australia30.261184243Morocco14.213184
17Greece30.01957044Finland14.19127
18USA29.9112334645Saudi Arabia13.5791070
19New Zealand29.4823546Pakistan12.729368
20Italy27.939108747Russia10.6553
21Poland27.32362848Colombia10.2661
22India27.3278757649Mexico8.7652
23China26.63881031950Czechia8.013104
24Brazil26.33181651Slovenia7.5645
25United Arab Emirates25.7923152Croatia7.3644
26Iran24.5234573053Norway6.21274
27Thailand24.12048154Romania5.1841
Source: Authors’ elaboration.
Table 7. Bibliographic coupling of articles.
Table 7. Bibliographic coupling of articles.
ClusterArticlesFirst YearLast YearWAIPRACitesNIY Average
1461999202021922217.2
2332002202018577125.9
3222006201913479624.8
491997201821158719.0
571994201319351323.2
6420102012285518.5
Source: Authors’ elaboration.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Castelló-Sirvent, F.; Meneses-Eraso, C.; Alonso-Gómez, J.; Peris-Ortiz, M. Three Decades of Fuzzy AHP: A Bibliometric Analysis. Axioms 2022, 11, 525. https://doi.org/10.3390/axioms11100525

AMA Style

Castelló-Sirvent F, Meneses-Eraso C, Alonso-Gómez J, Peris-Ortiz M. Three Decades of Fuzzy AHP: A Bibliometric Analysis. Axioms. 2022; 11(10):525. https://doi.org/10.3390/axioms11100525

Chicago/Turabian Style

Castelló-Sirvent, Fernando, Carlos Meneses-Eraso, Jaime Alonso-Gómez, and Marta Peris-Ortiz. 2022. "Three Decades of Fuzzy AHP: A Bibliometric Analysis" Axioms 11, no. 10: 525. https://doi.org/10.3390/axioms11100525

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop