[
Alaca, D., & Ulutaş, A. (2022). Measuring The Performance of Logistics Firms with an Integrated Multi-Criteria Decision Making Model. Gümüşhane University Journal of Social Sciences Institute, 13(3), 1027-1045.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Aldalou, E., & Perçin, S. (2020). Application of integrated fuzzy MCDM approach for financial performance evaluation of Turkish technology sector. International Journal of Procurement Management, 13(1), 1-23.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Ali, T., Chiu, Y. R., Aghaloo, K., Nahian, A. J., & Ma, H. (2020). Prioritizing the Existing Power Generation Technologies in Bangladesh’s Clean Energy Scheme Using A Hybrid Multi-Criteria Decision Making Model. Journal of Cleaner Production, 267, 121901.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Alinezhad, A., & Khalili, J. (2019). New Methods and Applications in Multiple Attribute Decision Making (MADM) (Vol. 277). Cham: Springer.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Avcı, M. C. (2019). Performance Analysis in Companies Operating in the Energy Sector with Multi-criteria Decision Making Methods. (Master Thesis, Marmara University, Turkey).
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Ayaydin, H., Durmuş, S., & Pala, F. (2017). Performance Measurement in Turkish Logistics Industry with Grade Relative Analysis Method. Gümüshane University Electronic Journal of the Institute of Social Science, 8(21).
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Bandono, A., & Nugroho, S. H. (2023). The Assessment of Company Performance Target Using Balanced Scorecard Methods. International Journal of Professional Business Review, 8(5), e01968-e01968.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Bu, M. (2021). Performance evaluation of enterprise supply chain management based on the discrete hopfield neural network. Computational Intelligence and Neuroscience, 2021.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Çakır, S. (2017). Measuring logistics performance of OECD countries via fuzzy linear regression. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, 24(3-4), 177-186.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Çakir, S., & Perçin, S. (2013). Performance measurement of logistics firms with multi-criteria decision making methods. Ege Academic Review, 13(4), 449.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Călinescu, G. (2022). The Applications of Blockchain and Artificial Intelligence in Logistics. Romanian Economic Journal, 25(84).
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Christopher, M. (2022). Logistics and supply chain management (6th Ed.). Pearson UK.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Çınaroğlu, E. (2019). Evaluation of The Automotive Sector Companies in The Fortune 500 List wıth SWARA Supported COPRAS Method. Cankırı Karatekin University Journal of the Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, 9(2), 593-611.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Ersoy, N. (2023). Applying an integrated data-driven weighting system–CoCoSo approach for financial performance evaluation of Fortune 500 companies. E&M Economics and Management, 26(3), 92-108.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Ersoy, Y., & Tehci, A. (2020). Logistics Marketing: Performance Evaluation in Companies Operating in Logistics Services with Data Envelopment Analysis. The Journal of International Scientific Researches, 5(1), 1-9.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Farrokh, M., Heydari, H., & Janani, H. (2016). Two comparative MCDM approaches for evaluating the financial performance of Iranian basic metals companies.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Ighravwe, D., & Babatunde, M. (2018). Selection of a Mini-grid Business Model for Developing Countries Using CRITIC-TOPSIS with Interval Type-2 Fuzzy Sets. Decision Science Letters, 7(4), 427-442.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Iman, R. L., & Helton, J. C. (1988). An investigation of uncertainty and sensitivity analysis techniques for computer models. Risk analysis, 8(1), 71-90.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Işık, Ö. (2022). A Multi-Criteria Performance Analysis of Turkish Logistics Firms Using Grey Entropy, FUCOM and EDAS-M Methods. Journal of Yasar University, 17(66), 472-489.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Isik, O., Aydin, Y., & Kosaroglu, S. M. (2020). The assessment of the logistics performance index of CEE countries with the new combination of SV and MABAC methods. LogForum, 16(4), 549-559.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Junior, F. R. L., Osiro, L., & Carpinetti, L. C. R. (2014). A comparison between Fuzzy AHP and Fuzzy TOPSIS methods to supplier selection. Applied soft computing, 21, 194-209.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Kara, K., Bentyn, Z., & Yalçın, G. C. (2022). Determining the logistics market performance of developing countries by entropy and MABAC methods. LogForum, 18(4).
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Keršuliene, V., Zavadskas, E. K., & Turskis, Z. (2010). Selection of Rational Dispute Resolution Method by Applying New Step-Wise Weight Assessment Ratio Analysis (SWARA). Journal of Business Economics and Management, 11(2), 243-258.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Keshavarz Ghorabaee, M., Amiri, M., Kazimieras Zavadskas, E., & Antuchevičienė, J. (2017). Assessment of Third-Party Logistics Providers Using A CRITIC–WASPAS Approach with Interval Type-2 Fuzzy Sets. Transport, 32(1), 66-78.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Keshavarz-Ghorabaee, M., Amiri, M., Zavadskas, E. K., Turskis, Z., & Antucheviciene, J. (2021). Determination of objective weights using a new method based on the removal effects of criteria (MEREC). Symmetry, 13(4), 525.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Kotane, I., & Kuzmina-Merlino, I. (2012). Assessment of Financial Indicators for Evaluation f Business Performance. European integration studies, (6).
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Kou, G., Lu, Y., Peng, Y., & Shi, Y. (2012). Evaluation of classification algorithms using MCDM and rank correlation. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making, 11(01), 197-225.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Maliene, V., Dixon-Gough, R., & Malys, N. (2018). Dispersion of relative importance values contributes to the ranking uncertainty: Sensitivity analysis of Multiple Criteria Decision-Making methods. Applied Soft Computing, 67, 286-298.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Mashovic, A. (2018). Key financial and nonfinancial measures for performance evaluation of foreign subsidiaries. Journal оf Contemporary Economic аnd Business Issues, 5(2), 63-74.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Md Saad, R., Ahmad, M. Z., Abu, M. S., & Jusoh, M. S. (2014). Hamming distance method with subjective and objective weights for personnel selection. The Scientific World Journal, 2014.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Mešić, A., Miškić, S., Stević, Ž., & Mastilo, Z. (2022). Hybrid MCDM solutions for evaluation of the logistics performance index of the Western Balkan countries. Economics, 10(1), 13-34.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Neely, A., Gregory, M., & Platts, K. (2005). Performance measurement system design: A literature review and research agenda. International journal of operations & production management, 25(12), 1228-1263.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Ochego, M. C., & Wycliffe, A. (2020). Logistics strategy as a competitive tool for firm performance: The moderating effect of customer service effectiveness. Journal of Sustainable Development of Transport and Logistics, 5(1), 56-65.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Özbek, A. (2018). Evaluation of The Logistics Companies on The List of Fortune 500. Afyon Kocatepe University Journal of Economics and Administrative Sciences,, 20(1), 13-26.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Özbek, A., & Demirkol, İ. (2018). Performance Analysis of Companies in the Logistics Sector by SWARA and GRA Methods. Kırıkkale University Journal of Social Sciencesi, 8(1), 71-86.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Özekenci, E. K. (2023). Assessing The Logistics Market Performance of Developing Countries By SWARA-CRITIC Based CoCoSo Method. LogForum, 19(3), 375-394.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Paramanik, A. R., Sarkar, S., & Sarkar, B. (2022). OSWMI: An objective-subjective weighted method for minimizing inconsistency in multi-criteria decision making. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 169, 108138.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Peng, Y., Kou, G., Wang, G., & Shi, Y. (2011). FAMCDM: A fusion approach of MCDM methods to rank multiclass classification algorithms. Omega, 39(6), 677-689.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Puška, A., Božanić, D., Mastilo, Z., & Pamučar, D. (2023). Extension of MEREC-CRADIS methods with double normalization-case study selection of electric cars. Soft Computing, 27(11), 7097-7113.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Puška, A., Stević, Ž., & Pamučar, D. (2021). Evaluation and selection of healthcare waste incinerators using extended sustainability criteria and multi-criteria analysis methods. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 1-31.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Rezaei, J., van Roekel, W. S., & Tavasszy, L. (2018). Measuring the relative importance of the logistics performance index indicators using Best Worst Method. Transport Policy, 68, 158-169.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Toslak, M., Aktürk, B., & Ulutaş, A. (2022). The Evaluation of the Performance of a Logistics Company by Years with MEREC and WEDBA Methods. European Journal of Science and Technology, (33), 363-372.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Triantaphyllou, E., & Sánchez, A. (1997). A sensitivity analysis approach for some deterministic multi-criteria decision-making methods. Decision sciences, 28(1), 151-194.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Ulutaş, A. (2018). The Performance Analysis of Logistics Companies with Entropy Based Edas Method. International Journal of Economics and Administrative Studies, (23), 53-66.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Ulutaş, A., & Karaköy, Ç. (2019). An analysis of the logistics performance index of EU countries with an integrated MCDM model. Economics and Business Review, 5 (4), 49-69.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Vilko, J., & Hallikas, J. (2023). Impact of COVID-19 on logistics sector companies. International Journal of Industrial Engineering and Operations Management.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Yagmahan, B., & Yılmaz, H. (2023). An integrated ranking approach based on group multi-criteria decision making and sensitivity analysis to evaluate charging stations under sustainability. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 25(1), 96-121.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Yürüyen, A. A., Ulutaş, A., & Özdağoğlu, A. (2023). The evaluation of the performance of logistics companies with a hybrid MCDM model. Business & Management Studies: An International Journal, 11(3), 731-751.
]Search in Google Scholar
