Consensus models for AHP group decision making under row geometric mean prioritization method

529 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Towards a holistic sustainability index for measuring sustainability of manufacturing companies (2015, methodology): “A similar technique to AIP is the aggregation of individual judgments which is suitable for cases where decision-makers must lay aside their own preferences for a common objective (Forman and Peniwati 1998; Dong et al. 2010).”
Ranking universities based on performance evaluation by a hybrid MCDM model (2012, methodology): “Both the AHP (Barbarosoglu & Yazgac, 1997; Goh, 1997; Dong et al., 2010) and the VIKOR method (Chang & Hsu, 2009; Kuo & Liang, 2011; San Cristóbal, 2011) have been utilized in prior research concerned with weighting and selecting issues, and the reliabilities of both methods have also been verified.”
Integrating experts' weights generated dynamically into the consensus reaching process and its applications in managing non-cooperative behaviors (2016, methodology): “Based on a “soft” consensus level, different types of CRPs have been proposed: (i) CRPs under different preference representation formats [10,13,15,17,28,35, 55]; (ii) CRPs with minimum adjustments or cost [5,6,12,16,22,23,66, 68,69]; (iii) CRPs based on consistency and consensus measures [18, 20,25”