VIKOR multi-criteria decision making with AHP reliable weighting for article acceptance recommendation

(1) * Aji Prasetya Wibawa Mail (Universitas Negeri Malang, Indonesia)
(2) Juwita Annisa Fauzi Mail (Universitas Negeri Malang, Indonesia)
(3) Seno Isbiyantoro Mail (Universitas Negeri Malang, Indonesia)
(4) Rahmat Irsyada Mail (Universitas Negeri Malang, Indonesia)
(5) Dhaniyar Dhaniyar Mail (Universitas Negeri Malang, Indonesia)
(6) Leonel Hernandez Mail (Faculty of Engineering, Institución Universitaria ITSA, Colombia)
*corresponding author

Abstract


DSS is built to support the solution recommendation of a problem. AHP and VIKOR are examples of DSS method. Due to VIKOR’s subjective weighting, this study combines the AHP and VIKOR approach to create a better and more reliable decision support system. The DSS is used to recommend article acceptance using five criteria: originality, quality, clarity, significance, and relevance. The results showed that AHP-VIKOR outperforms the performance of VIKOR. AHP weighting reliably replaces the subjective VIKOR’s initial weighting. The AHP-VIKOR result is more accurate and steadier than VIKOR. Thus, AHP-VIKOR can be presented as a proposed approach for creating a recommendation of scientific article acceptance.

Keywords


DSS MCDM AHP VIKOR

   

DOI

https://doi.org/10.26555/ijain.v5i2.172
      

Article metrics

Abstract views : 205 | PDF views : 39

   

Cite

   

Full Text

Download

References


[1] National Forum on Education Statistics. "Forum Guide to Metadata: The Meaning Behind Education Data (NFES 2009--805)", US Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics., 2009, available at: Google Scholar.

[2] D. Jato-Espino, E. Castillo-Lopez, J. Rodriguez-Hernandez, and J. C. Canteras-Jordana, “A review of application of multi-criteria decision making methods in construction,” Autom. Constr., vol. 45, pp. 151–162, Sep. 2014, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2014.05.013.

[3] M. Velasquez and P. T. Hester, “An analysis of multi-criteria decision making methods,” Int. J. Oper. Res., vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 56–66, 2013 available at: Google Scholar.

[4] S. Bhattacharya and V. Raju, “A Condorcet Voting Theory Based AHP Approach for MCDM Problems,” Indones. J. Electr. Eng. Comput. Sci., vol. 7, no. 1, p. 276, Jul. 2017, doi: 10.11591/ijeecs.v7.i1.pp276-286.

[5] H. Chiou, G. Tzeng, and D. Cheng, “Evaluating sustainable fishing development strategies using fuzzy MCDM approach,” Omega, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 223–234, Jun. 2005, doi: 10.1016/j.omega.2004.04.011.

[6] H. Veisi, H. Liaghati, and A. Alipour, “Developing an ethics-based approach to indicators of sustainable agriculture using analytic hierarchy process (AHP),” Ecol. Indic., vol. 60, pp. 644–654, Jan. 2016, doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.08.012.

[7] S. N. Kamaruzzaman, E. C. W. Lou, P. F. Wong, R. Wood, and A. I. Che-Ani, “Developing weighting system for refurbishment building assessment scheme in Malaysia through analytic hierarchy process (AHP) approach,” Energy Policy, vol. 112, pp. 280–290, Jan. 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2017.10.023.

[8] E. Koç and H. A. Burhan, “An application of analytic hierarchy process (AHP) in a real world problem of store location selection,” Adv. Manag. Appl. Econ., vol. 5, no. 1, p. 41, 2015 available at: Google Scholar.

[9] S. Gupta, G. S. Dangayach, A. K. Singh, and P. N. Rao, “Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) Model for Evaluating Sustainable Manufacturing Practices in Indian Electrical Panel Industries,” Procedia - Soc. Behav. Sci., vol. 189, pp. 208–216, May 2015, doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.03.216.

[10] K. Yu, R. Gong, L. Sun, S. Hu, and Y. Luo, “Empirical Study of Performance Evaluation for the Implementation of Learning Organizations in the Ecology Industry with Data Envelopment Analysis.,” Ekoloji Derg., no. 106, 2018 available at: Google Scholar.

[11] T. Y. Lin, “Evaluating the leisure benefits of ecotourism with data envelopment analysis,” Appl. Ecol. Environ. Res., vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 33–41, 2017, doi: 10.15666/aeer/1502_033041.

[12] H. Zhou, Y. Yang, Y. Chen, and J. Zhu, “Data envelopment analysis application in sustainability: The origins, development and future directions,” Eur. J. Oper. Res., vol. 264, no. 1, pp. 1–16, Jan. 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.ejor.2017.06.023.

[13] I. Widiarto and A. Emrouznejad, “Social and financial efficiency of Islamic microfinance institutions: A Data Envelopment Analysis application,” Socioecon. Plann. Sci., vol. 50, pp. 1–17, Jun. 2015, doi: 10.1016/j.seps.2014.12.001.

[14] S. Wan, G. Xu, and J. Dong, “Supplier selection using ANP and ELECTRE II in interval 2-tuple linguistic environment,” Inf. Sci. (Ny)., vol. 385–386, pp. 19–38, Apr. 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.ins.2016.12.032.

[15] S. S. Hashemi, S. H. R. Hajiagha, E. K. Zavadskas, and H. A. Mahdiraji, “Multicriteria group decision making with ELECTRE III method based on interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy information,” Appl. Math. Model., vol. 40, no. 2, pp. 1554–1564, Jan. 2016, doi: 10.1016/j.apm.2015.08.011.

[16] J. Peng, J. Wang, and X. Wu, “An extension of the ELECTRE approach with multi-valued neutrosophic information,” Neural Comput. Appl., vol. 28, no. S1, pp. 1011–1022, Dec. 2017, doi: 10.1007/s00521-016-2411-8.

[17] C. H. Primasari, R. Wardoyo, and A. K. Sari, “Integrated AHP, Profile Matching, and TOPSIS for selecting type of goats based on environmental and financial criteria,” Int. J. Adv. Intell. Informatics, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 28–39, Mar. 2018, doi: 10.26555/ijain.v4i1.105.

[18] P. Biswas, S. Pramanik, and B. C. Giri, “TOPSIS method for multi-attribute group decision-making under single-valued neutrosophic environment,” Neural Comput. Appl., vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 727–737, Apr. 2016, doi: 10.1007/s00521-015-1891-2.

[19] J. Hu, Y. Du, H. Mo, D. Wei, and Y. Deng, “A modified weighted TOPSIS to identify influential nodes in complex networks,” Phys. A Stat. Mech. its Appl., vol. 444, pp. 73–85, Feb. 2016, doi: 10.1016/j.physa.2015.09.028.

[20] P. Chemweno, L. Pintelon, A. Van Horenbeek, and P. Muchiri, “Development of a risk assessment selection methodology for asset maintenance decision making: An analytic network process (ANP) approach,” Int. J. Prod. Econ., vol. 170, pp. 663–676, Dec. 2015, doi: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2015.03.017.

[21] X. Zhang, Y. Deng, F. T. Chan, A. Adamatzky, and S. Mahadevan, “Supplier selection based on evidence theory and analytic network process,” Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part B J. Eng. Manuf., vol. 230, no. 3, pp. 562–573, Mar. 2016, doi: 10.1177/0954405414551105.

[22] P. Aragonés-Beltrán, M. García-Melón, and J. Montesinos-Valera, “How to assess stakeholders’ influence in project management? A proposal based on the Analytic Network Process,” Int. J. Proj. Manag., vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 451–462, Apr. 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.01.001.

[23] M. Tavana, R. Kiani Mavi, F. J. Santos-Arteaga, and E. Rasti Doust, “An extended VIKOR method using stochastic data and subjective judgments,” Comput. Ind. Eng., vol. 97, pp. 240–247, Jul. 2016, doi: 10.1016/j.cie.2016.05.013.

[24] S. Opricovic and G.-H. Tzeng, “Extended VIKOR method in comparison with outranking methods,” Eur. J. Oper. Res., vol. 178, no. 2, pp. 514–529, Apr. 2007, doi: 10.1016/j.ejor.2006.01.020.

[25] S. Opricovic and G.-H. Tzeng, “A comparative analysis of the DEA-CCR model and the VIKOR method,” Yugosl. J. Oper. Res., vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 187–203, 2008, doi: 10.2298/YJOR0802187O.

[26] Y.-H. Huang, G.-W. Wei, and C. Wei, “VIKOR Method for Interval Neutrosophic Multiple Attribute Group Decision-Making,” Information, vol. 8, no. 4, p. 144, Nov. 2017, doi: 10.3390/info8040144.

[27] Z. Turskis and E. K. Zavadskas, “A new fuzzy additive ratio assessment method (ARAS‐F). case study: the analysis of fuzzy multiple criteria in order to select the logistic centers location,” Transport, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 423–432, Dec. 2010, doi: 10.3846/transport.2010.52.

[28] T. L. Saaty, “Fundamentals of the Analytic Hierarchy Process,” 2001, pp. 15–35, doi: 10.1007/978-94-015-9799-9_2.

[29] T. L. Saaty, “Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process,” Int. J. Serv. Sci., vol. 1, no. 1, p. 83, 2008, doi: 10.1504/IJSSCI.2008.017590.

[30] M. Kurttila, M. Pesonen, J. Kangas, and M. Kajanus, “Utilizing the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) in SWOT analysis — a hybrid method and its application to a forest-certification case,” For. Policy Econ., vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 41–52, May 2000, doi: 10.1016/S1389-9341(99)00004-0.

[31] S. Opricovic and G.-H. Tzeng, “Compromise solution by MCDM methods: A comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS,” Eur. J. Oper. Res., vol. 156, no. 2, pp. 445–455, Jul. 2004, doi: 10.1016/S0377-2217(03)00020-1.

[32] J. R. San Cristóbal, “Multi-criteria decision-making in the selection of a renewable energy project in spain: The Vikor method,” Renew. Energy, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 498–502, Feb. 2011, doi: 10.1016/j.renene.2010.07.031.




Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

___________________________________________________________
International Journal of Advances in Intelligent Informatics
ISSN 2442-6571  (print) | 2548-3161 (online)
Organized by Informatics Department - Universitas Ahmad Dahlan , and UTM Big Data Centre - Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
Published by Universitas Ahmad Dahlan
W : http://ijain.org
E : info@ijain.org, andri.pranolo@tif.uad.ac.id (paper handling issues)
     ijain@uad.ac.id, andri.pranolo.id@ieee.org (publication issues)

View IJAIN Stats

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0