[
Adar, T., & Delice, E. K. (2019). New integrated approaches based on MC-HFLTS for healthcare waste treatment technology selection. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 32(4), 688-711. doi: 10.1108/JEIM-10-2018-0235
]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[
Afgan, N. H., & Carvalho, M. G. (2002). Multi-criteria assessment of new and renewable energy power plants. Energy, 27(8), 739-755. doi: 10.1016/S0360-5442(02)00019-1
]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[
Alao, M. A., Ayodele, T. R., Ogunjuyigbe, A. S. O., & Popoola, O. M. (2020). Multi-criteria decision based waste to energy technology selection using entropy-weighted TOPSIS technique: The case study of Lagos, Nigeria. Energy, 201, 117675. doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2020.117675
]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[
Alao, M., Popoola, O. & Ayodele, T. (2022). A novel fuzzy integrated MCDM model for optimal selection of waste-to-energy-based-distributed generation under uncertainty: A case of the City of Cape Town, South Africa. Journal of Cleaner Production, 343, 130824. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.130824
]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[
Alcácer, V. & Cruz-Machado, V. (2019). Scanning the Industry 4.0: A Literature Review on Technologies for Manufacturing Systems. Engineering Science and Technology, an International Journal, 22. doi: 10.1016/j.jestch.2019.01.006
]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[
Ali, T., Nahian, A. J., & Ma, H. (2020). A hybrid multi-criteria decision-making approach to solve renewable energy technology selection problem for Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh. Journal of Cleaner Production, 273, 122967. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122967
]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[
Ansari, R., Soltanzadeh, J., & Tavassoli, A. (2016). Technology selection between technology management and decision making: A case study from the Iranian automotive industry. International Journal of Automotive Technology and Management, 16(4), 365-388. doi: 10.1504/IJATM.2016.081618
]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[
Arslan, H. (2017). Current classification of multi criteria decision analysis methods and public sector implementations. In A. Murat, N. S., Pinarcioglu, & U. Orgen (Eds.), Current Debates in Public Finance, Public Administration, & Environmental Studies, (pp. 241–261). London, United Kingdom: IJOPEC Publication Limited.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Aydiner, C., Sen, U., Koseoglu-Imer, D. Y., & Can Dogan, E. (2016). Hierarchical prioritization of innovative treatment systems for sustainable dairy wastewater management. Journal of Cleaner Production, 112, 4605-4617. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.08.107
]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[
Badia, X., et al. (2019). Patient involvement in reflective multicriteria decision analysis to assist decision making in oncology. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 35(1), 56-63. doi: 10.1017/S0266462318003641
]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[
Baran-Kooiker, A., Czech, M., & Kooiker, C. (2018). Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) Models in Health Technology Assessment of Orphan Drugs-a Systematic Literature Review. Next Steps in Methodology Development? Frontier in Public Health, 6, 287. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2018.00287
]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[
Baran-Kooiker, A., et al. (2019). Applicability of the evidem multi-criteria decision analysis framework for orphan drugs - results from a study in 7 Eurasian countries. Acta Poloniae Pharmaceutica, 76(3), 581-598. doi: 10.32383/appdr/102681
]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[
Belezas, F., & Daniel, A. (2022). Innovation in the sharing economy: A systematic literature review and research framework. Technovation, 102509. doi: 10.1016/j.technovation.2022.102509
]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[
Beyaz, H. F., & Yildirim, N. (2019). A Multi-criteria Decision-Making Model for Digital Transformation in Manufacturing: A Case Study from Automotive Supplier Industry. Proceedings of the International Symposium for Production Research 2019, 217-232. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-31343-2_19
]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[
Blonda, A., Denier, Y., Huys, I., & Simoens, S. (2021). How to Value Orphan Drugs? A Review of European Value Assessment Frameworks. Frontiers in Pharmacology, 12, 631527. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2021.631527
]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[
Boudard, A., et al. (2016). Introduction of Health technology assessment at hospital [Mise en place de l’évaluation des technologies de santé en milieu hospitalier]. Annales Pharmaceutiques Francaises, 74(6), 473-481. doi: 10.1016/j.pharma.2016.03.001
]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[
Brans, J.P., Mareschal, B., & Vincke, P. (1984). PROMETHEE: A new family of outranking methods in multicriteria analysis. Operational Research, 3, 477-490.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Buyukozkan, G., & Gocer, F. (2019). Technology Selection for Logistics and Supply Chain Management by the Extended Intuitionistic Fuzzy TOPSIS. Proceedings - 2019 3rd International Conference on Data Science and Business Analytics, ICDSBA 2019, 9270219, 129-134. doi: 10.1109/ICDSBA48748.2019.00036
]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[
Buyukozkan, G., Feyzioglu, O., & Gocer, F. (2018). Selection of sustainable urban transportation alternatives using an integrated intuitionistic fuzzy Choquet integral approach. Transportation Research Part D-Transport and Environment, 58, 186-207. doi: 10.1016/j.trd.2017.12.005
]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[
Carver, S. J. (1991). Integrating multi-criteria evaluation with geographical information systems. Geographical Information Systems, 5(3), 321-339. doi: 10.1080/02693799108927858
]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[
Castro, H. E., Moreno-Mattar, O., & Rivillas, J. C. (2018). HTA and MCDA solely or combined? The case of priority-setting in Colombia. Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation, 6(1), 42. doi: 10.1186/s12962-020-00237-5
]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[
Cavallaro, F., Zavadskas, E. K., Streimikiene, D., & Mardani, A. (2019). Assessment of concentrated solar power (CSP) technologies based on a modified intuitionistic fuzzy topsis and trigonometric entropy weights. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 140, 258-270. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2018.12.009
]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[
Chadderton, C., et al. (2017). Decision support for selection of food waste technologies at military installations. Journal of Cleaner Production, 141, 267-277. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.08.091
]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[
Chan, F. T. S., Chan, M. H., & Tang, N. K. H. (2000). Evaluation methodologies for technology selection. Journal of Materials Processing Technology, 107(1-3), 330-337. doi: 10.1016/S0924-0136(00)00679-8
]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[
Chodakowska, E., & Nazarko, J. (2020a). Rough Sets and DEA - a hybrid model for technology assessment. MATEC Web of Conferences, 312(2), 01006. doi: 10.1051/matecconf/202031201006
]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[
Chodakowska, E., & Nazarko, J. (2020b). Hybrid rough set and data envelopment analysis approach to technology prioritisation. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 26(4), 1-22. doi: 10.3846/tede.2020.12538
]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[
Choudhury, A. K., Shankar, R., & Tiwari, M. K. (2006). Consensus-based intelligent group decision-making model for the selection of advanced technology. Decision Support Systems, 42(3), 1776-1799. doi: 10.1016/j.dss.2005.05.001
]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[
Ciani, L., Guidi, G., & Patrizi, G. (2022). Human reliability in railway engineering: Literature review and biblio-metric analysis of the last two decades. Safety Science, 151, 105755. doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2022.105755.
]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[
Daniels, N. (2018). Combining A4R and MCDA in priority setting for health. Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation, 169, 51. doi: 10.1186/s12962-018-0124-9
]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[
Danner, M., et al. (2011). Integrating patients’ views into health technology assessment: Analytic hierarchy process (AHP) as a method to elicit patient preferences. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 27(4), 369-375. doi: 10.1017/S0266462311000523
]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[
Dat, L. Q., Chou, S. Y., Le, N. T., Wiguna, E., Yu, T. H. K., & Phuc, P. N. K. (2014). Selecting renewable energy technology via a fuzzy MCDM approach. In Moving Integrated Product Development to Service Clouds in the Global Economy. Proceedings of the 21st ISPE Inc. International Conference on Concurrent Engineering, CE 2014, p. 796-805. IOS Press.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Delvenne, P., & Rosskamp, B. (2021). Cosmopolitan technology assessment? Lessons learned from attempts to address the deficit of technology assessment in Europe. Journal of Responsible Innovation, 1-26. doi: 10.1080/23299460.2021.1988433
]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[
DiStefano, M. J., & Krubiner, C. B. (2020). Beyond the numbers: a critique of quantitative multi-criteria decision analysis. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 36(4), 292-296. doi: 10.1017/S0266462320000410
]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[
Donthu, N., Kumar, S., Mukherjee, D., Pandey, N. & Lim, W. (2021). How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 133(C), 285-296. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.04.070
]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[
Effatpanah, S. K., et al. (2022). Comparative Analysis of Five Widely-Used Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods to Evaluate Clean Energy Technologies: A Case Study. Sustainability, 14(3), 1402. doi: 10.3390/su14031403
]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[
Eilat, H., Golany, B., & Shtub, A. (2008). R&D project evaluation: An integrated DEA and balanced scorecard approach. Omega-International Journal Of Management Science, 36(5), 895-912. doi: 10.1016/j.omega.2006.05.002
]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[
Elahi, M., Alvandi, M., Valehzagharad, H. K., & Memarzade, M. (2011). Selecting the best ABS sensor technology using fuzzy MADM. Scientific Research and Essays, 6(31), 6487-6498. doi: 10.5897/SRE11.1079
]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[
Fang, H., Wang, X., & Song, W. (2020). Technology selection for photovoltaic cell from sustainability perspective: An integrated approach, Renewable Energy, 153, 1029-1041. doi: 10.1016/j.renene.2020.02.064
]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[
Farghaly, M. N., et al. (2021). Recommendation for a Pilot MCDA Tool to Support the Value-Based Purchasing of Generic Medicines in the UAE. Frontiers in Pharmacology, 12, 680737. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2021.680737
]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[
Fetanat, A., Tayebi, M., & Mofid, H. (2021). Water-energy-food security nexus based selection of energy recovery from wastewater treatment technologies: An extended decision making framework under intuitionistic fuzzy environment. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments, 43, 100937. doi: 10.1016/j.seta.2020.100937
]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[
Freire, S. M., Nascimento, A., & de Almeida, R. T. (2019). A multiple criteria decision making system for setting priorities. IFMBE Proceedings, 68(1), 357-361. doi: 10.1007/978-981-10-9035-6_65
]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[
Ghasempour, R., Nazari, M. A., Ebrahimi, M., Ahmadi, M. H., & Hadiyanto, H. (2019). Multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) approach for selecting solar plants site and technology: A review. International Journal of Renewable Energy Development, 8(1), 15-25. doi: 10.14710/ijred.8.1.15-25
]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[
Gil-de-Castro, A., Moreno Muñoz, A., López Rodríguez, M. A., & De La Rosa, J. J. G. (2010). Energy supply for sustainable regional development in Cordoba. 2010 9th Conference on Environment and Electrical Engineering, EEEIC 2010, 5490026, 6-9. doi: 10.1109/EEEIC.2010.5490026
]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[
Glińska, E., & Siemieniako, D. (2018). Binge drinking in relation to services – bibliometric analysis of scientific research directions. Engineering Management in Production and Services, 10(1), 45-54. doi: 10.1515/emj-2018-0004
]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[
Govind Kharat, M., et al. (2019). Fuzzy multi-criteria decision analysis for environmentally conscious solid waste treatment and disposal technology selection. Technology in Society, 57, 20-29. doi: 10.1016/j.techsoc.2018.12.005
]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[
Gudanowska, A. E. (2017). A map of current research trends within technology management in the light of selected literature. Management and Production Engineering Review, 8(1), 78-88. doi: 10.1515/mper2017-0009
]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[
Hajduk, S. (2017). Bibliometric Analysis of Publications on City Logistics in International Scientific Literature. Procedia Engineering, 182, 282-290. doi: 10.1016/j.proeng.2017.03.194
]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[
Halicka, K. (2017). Main Concepts of Technology Analysis in the Light of the Literature on the Subject. Procedia Engineering, 182, 291-298. doi: 10.1016/j.proeng.2017.03.196
]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[
Halicka, K. (2020). Technology Selection Using the TOPSIS Method. Foresight and STI Governance, 14(1), 85-96. doi: 10.17323/2500-2597.2020.1.85.96
]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[
Hallerbach W., & Spronk J. (2003). The relevance of MCDM for financial decisions. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, 11, 187-195. doi: 10.1002/mcda.328
]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[
Hamzeh, S. R., & Xun, X. (2019). Technology Selection Methods and Applications in Manufacturing: A Review from 1990 to 2017. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 138, 106123. doi: 10.1016/j.cie.2019.106123
]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[
Hilgerink, M. P., Hummel, M. J. M., Manohar, S., Vaartjes, S. R. I., & Jzerman, M. J. (2011). Assessment of the added value of the Twente Photoacoustic Mammo-scope in breast cancer diagnosis. Medical Devices-Evidence and Research, 4, 107-115. doi: 10.2147/MDER. S20169
]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[
Houseman, O., Tiwari, A., & Roy, R. (2004). A methodology for the selection of new technologies in the aviation industry. Decision Engineering Report Series. Retrieved from https://dspace.lib.cranfield.ac.uk/handle/1826/772
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Hummel et al. (2012). Using the analytic hierarchy process to elicit patient preferences: Prioritizing multiple outcome measures of antidepressant drug treatment. Patient, 5(4), 25-237. doi: 10.2165/11635240-000000000-00000
]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[
Husereau, D., Boucher, M., & Noorani, H. (2010). Priority setting for health technology assessment at CADTH. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 26(3), 341-347. doi: 10.1017/S0266462310000383
]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[
Hwang, C. L., & Yoon, K. (1981). Multiple Attribute Decision Making Methods and Applications: A State of the Art Survey. New York, USA: Springer-Verlag.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Ibáñez-Forés, V., Bovea, M. D., & Pérez-Belis, V. (2014). A holistic review of applied methodologies for assessing and selecting the optimal technological alternative from a sustainability perspective. Journal of Cleaner Production, 70, 259-281. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.01.082
]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[
Ighravwe, D. E., & Mashao, D. (2019). Development of a Techno-economic Framework for Renewable Energy Project Financing. Proceedings Of 2019 Ieee 2nd International Conference On Renewable Energy And Power Engineering (REPE 2019),120-124. doi: 10.1109/REPE48501.2019.9025162
]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[
Ilangkumaran, M., et al. (2013). Optimization of waste-water treatment technology selection using hybrid MCDM. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, 24(5), 619-641. doi: 10.1108/MEQ-07-2012-0053
]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[
Improta, G., Derrone, A., Russo, M. A., & Triassi, M. (2019). Health technology assessment (HTA) of optoelectronic biosensors for oncology by analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and Likert scale. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 19(1), 140. doi: 10.1186/s12874-019-0775-z
]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[
Improta, G., et al. (2018). Use of the AHP methodology in system dynamics: Modelling and simulation for health technology assessments to determine the correct prosthesis choice for hernia diseases. Mathematical Biosciences, 299, 19-27. doi: 10.1016/j.mbs.2018.03.004
]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[
Isoke, J., & Van Dijk, M. P. (2014). Factors influencing selection of drinking water technologies for urban informal settlements in Kampala. Water and Environment Journal, 28(3), 423-433. doi: 10.1111/wej.12058
]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[
Ivlev, I., Vacek, J., & Kneppo, P. (2015). Multi-criteria decision analysis for supporting the selection of medical devices under uncertainty. European Journal of Operational Research, 247(1), 216-228. doi: 10.1016/j.ejor.2015.05.075
]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[
Jiang, J., Jain, A., Lui, J., Garcia, J., & Limarta, S. (2015). Technology assessment of waste disposal technologies for Tillamook county. Portland International Conference on Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), 408-421. doi: 10.1109/PIC-MET.2015.7273110.
]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[
Jin, Z., & Gambatese, J. (2020). A Fuzzy Multi-Criteria Decision Approach to Technology Selection for Concrete Formwork Monitoring. Construction Research Congress 2020: Computer Applications - Selected Papers from the Construction Research Congress 2020, 76-85. doi: 10.1061/9780784482865.009
]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[
Jurickova, I., & Kraina, A. (2014). Case study: Mobile X-ray equipment selection for a traumatology department using value engineering and multi-criteria decision methods. Proceedings IWBBIO 2014: International Work-Conference On Bioinformatics And Biomedical Engineering, 1-2, 1389-1402.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Kafuku, J. M., Saman, M. Z. M., & Yusof, S. M. (2019). Application of Fuzzy Logic in Selection of Remanufac-turing Technology. Procedia Manufacturing, 33, 192-199. doi: 10.1016/j.promfg.2019.04.023
]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[
Karatas, M., Karacan, I., & Tozan, H. (2018). An integrated multi-criteria decision making methodology for health technology assessment. European Journal of Industrial Engineering, 12(4), 504-534. doi: 10.1504/EJIE.2018.093637
]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[
Karrer, L., Zhang, S. X., Kuhlein, T., & Kolominsky-Rabas, P. L. (2021). Exploring physicians and patients’ perspectives for current interventions on thyroid nodules using a MCDA method. Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation, 19(1), 26. doi: 10.1186/s12962-021-00279-3
]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[
Karsak, E. E., & Ahiska, S. S. (2005). Practical common weight multi-criteria decision-making approach with an improved discriminating power for technology selection. International Journal of Production Research, 43(8), 1537-1554. doi: 10.1080/13528160412331326478
]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[
Kaur, G., et al. (2019). Criteria Used for Priority-Setting for Public Health Resource Allocation in Lowand Middle-Income Countries: A Systematic Review. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 35(6), 474-483. doi: 10.1017/S0266462319000473
]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[
Kelley, L. T., Egan, R., Stockley, D., & Johnson, A. P. (2018). Evaluating multi-criteria decision-making in health technology assessment. Health Policy and Technology, 7(3), 310-317. doi: 10.1016/j.hlpt.2018.05.002
]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[
Kharat, M. G., Murthy, S., Kamble, S. J., & Kharat, M. G. (2020). Selecting sustainable technologies for municipal solid waste treatment and disposal: An expert based MCDM approach. Journal of Solid Waste Technology and Management, 46(1), 44-57. doi: 10.5276/JSWTM/2020.44
]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[
Khatri, J., & Srivastava, M. (2016). Technology selection for sustainable supply chains. International Journal of Technology Management and Sustainable Development, 15(3), 275-289. doi: 10.1386/tmsd.15.3.275_1
]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[
Kolasa, K., Zwolinski, K. M., Zah, V., Kalo, Z., & Lewandowski, T. (2018). Revealed preferences towards the appraisal of orphan drugs in Poland - multi criteria decision analysis. Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases, 13, 67. doi: 10.1186/s13023-018-0803-9
]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[
Kolli, S., & Parsaei, H. R. (1992). Multicriteria analysis in the evaluation of advanced manufacturing technology using PROMETHEE. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 23(1-4), 455-458. doi: 10.1016/0360-8352(92)90159-H
]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[
Krishnan, V., & Bhattacharya, S. (2002). Technology selection and commitment in new product development: The role of uncertainty and design flexibility. Management Science, 48(3), 313-327. doi: 10.1287/mnsc.48.3.313.7728
]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[
Kwon, S. H., Park, S. K., Byun, J. H., & Lee, E. K. (2017). Eliciting societal preferences of reimbursement decision criteria for anti cancer drugs in South Korea. Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research, 17(4), 411-419. doi: 10.1080/14737167.2017.1277144
]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[
Laba, T. L., Jiwani, B., Crossland, R., & Mitton, C. (2020). Can multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) be implemented into real-world drug decision-making processes? A Canadian provincial experience. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 36(4), 434-439. doi: 10.1017/S0266462320000525
]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[
Lasorsa, I., Padoano, E., Marceglia, S., & Accardo, A. (2019). Multi-criteria decision analysis for the assessment of non-clinical hospital services: Methodology and case study. Operations Research for Health Care, 23, 100171. doi: 10.1016/j.orhc.2018.08.002
]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[
Li, Y., & Hu, Z. (2022). A review of multi-attributes decision-making models for offshore oil and gas facilities decommissioning. Journal of Ocean Engineering and Science, 7(1), 58-74. doi: 10.1016/j.joes.2021.05.002
]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[
Liu, Y., & Du, J. L. (2020). A multi criteria decision support framework for renewable energy storage technology selection. Journal of Cleaner Production, 277, 122183. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122183
]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[
Long, Y., Tang, M., & Liao, H. (2021). Renewable energy source technology selection considering the em-pathetic preferences of experts in a cognitive fuzzy social participatory allocation network. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 175, 121317. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121317
]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[
Lootsma, F. A., Mensch, T. C. A., & Vos, F. A. (1990). Multi-criteria analysis and budget reallocation in long-term research planning. European Journal of Operational Research, 47, 295-305. doi: 10.1016/0377-2217(90)90216-X
]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[
Lu, C., You, J. X., Liu, H. C., & Li, P. (2016). Health-Care Waste Treatment Technology Selection Using the Interval 2-Tuple Induced TOPSIS Method. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 13(6), 562. doi: 10.3390/ijerph13060562
]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[
Ma, D., Chang, C.C., & Hung, S.W. (2013). The selection of technology for late-starters: A case study of the energy-smart photovoltaic industry. Economic Modelling, 35, 10-20. doi: 10.1016/j.econmod.2013.06.030
]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[
Mall, S., & Anbanandam, R. (2022). A Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process and VIKOR Framework for Evaluation and Selection of Electric Vehicle Charging Technology for India. Transportation in Developing Economies, 8(14). doi: 10.1007/s40890-022-00150-x
]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[
Mardani, A., Jusoh, A., Halicka, K., Ejdys, J., Magruk, A. & Ahmad, U. (2018). Determining the utility in management by using multi-criteria decision support tools: a review. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja, 31(1),1666-1716. doi: 10.1080/1331677X.2018.1488600
]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[
Marsh, K. D., Sculpher, M., Caro, J. J., & Tervonen, T. (2018). The Use of MCDA in HTA: Great Potential, but More Effort Needed. Value in Health, 21(4), 394-397. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2017.10.001
]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[
Marsh, K., Caro, J. J., Zaiser, E., Heywood, J., & Hamed, A. (2018). Patient-centered decision making: lessons from multi-criteria decision analysis for quantifying patient preferences. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 34(1), 105-110 doi: 10.1017/S0266462317001118
]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[
Marsh, K., et al. (2014). Assessing the Value of Healthcare Interventions Using Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis: A Review of the Literature. Pharmacoeconomics, 32(4), 345-365. doi: 10.1007/s40273-014-0135-0
]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[
Martelli, N., et al. (2016). Combining multi-criteria decision analysis and mini-health technology assessment: A funding decision-support tool for medical devices in a university hospital setting. Journal of Biomedical Informatics, 59, 201-208. doi: 10.1016/j.jbi.2015.12.002
]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[
Meerholz, A., & Brent, A.C. (2012). Assessing the sustainability of wastewater treatment technologies in the petrochemical industry. 2012 IEEE International Technology Management Conference, ITMC 2012, 6306395, 387-392. doi: 10.1109/ITMC.2012.6306395
]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[
Michalski, A., Głodziński, E. & Bӧde, K. (2022). Lean construction management techniques and BIM technology – systematic literature review. Procedia Computer Science, 196, 1036-1043. doi: 10.1016/j.procs.2021.12.107
]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[
Mobinizadeh, M., et al. (2016). A model for priority setting of health technology assessment: the experience of AHP-TOPSIS combination approach. Daru-Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences, 24, 10. doi: 10.1186/s40199-016-0148-7
]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[
Montazeri, M. & Najjartabar Bisheh, M. (2017). Optimizing Technology Selection for Power Smart Grid Systems: a Case Study of Iran Power Distribution Industry (IPDI). Technology and Economics of Smart Grids and Sustainable Energy, 2. doi: 10.1007/s40866-017-0021-x
]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[
Mpanang’ombe, W., Tilley, E., Zabaleta, I., & Zurbrügg, C. (2018). A biowaste treatment technology assessment in Malawi. Recycling, 3(4), 55. doi: 10.3390/recycling3040055
]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[
Muerza, V. de Arcocha, D., Larrodé, E., & Moreno-Jiménez, J. M. (2014). The multicriteria selection of products in technological diversification strategies: An application to the Spanish automotive industry based on AHP. Production Planning & Control, 25(8), 715-728. doi: 10.1080/09537287.2013.798089
]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[
Mühlbacher, A. C., & Juhnke, C. (2016). Involving patients, the insured and the general public in healthcare decision making [Patienten- und Bürgerpartizipation in der Entscheidungsfindung im Gesundheitswesen insbesondere bei der Bewertung von Arzneimitteln]. Zeitschrift fur Evidenz, Fortbildung und Qualitat im Gesundheitswesen, 110-111, 36-44. doi: 10.1016/j.zefq.2015.12.001
]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[
Narayanamoorthy, S., et al. (2021). A new extension of hesitant fuzzy set: An application to an offshore wind turbine technology selection process. IET Renewable Power Generation, 15(11), 2340-2355 doi: 10.1049/rpg2.12168
]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[
Nur, F., Burch, V. R. F. Marufuzzaman, M., & Smith, B. K. (2021). Handheld Technology Selection, Evaluation, and Risk Mitigation Using Stochastic Analytical Hierarchical Process: A Standardization of the Request for Proposal Process. Engineering Management Journal (Early Access). doi: 10.1080/10429247.2020.1847561
]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[
Onar, S. C., Oztaysi, B., Otay, I., & Kahraman, C. (2015). Multi-expert wind energy technology selection using interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Energy, 90, 274-285. doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2015.06.086
]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[
Oortwijn, W., & Klein, P. (2019). Addressing Health System Values in Health Technology Assessment: The Use of Evidence-Informed Deliberative Processes. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 35(2), 82-84. doi: 10.1017/S0266462319000187
]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[
Opricovic, S., & Tzeng, G. H. (2004). Compromise solution by MCDM methods: A comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS. European Journal of Operational Research, 156(2), 445-455. doi: 10.1016/S0377-2217(03)00020-1
]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[
Özkale, C., Celik, C., Turkmen, A. & Cakmaz, E. (2016). Decision analysis application intended for selection of a power plant running on renewable energy sources. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 70. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2016.12.006.
]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[
Oztaysi, B. (2014). A decision model for information technology selection using AHP integrated TOPSIS-Grey: The case of content management systems. Knowledge-Based Systems, 70, 44-54. doi: 10.1016/j.knosys.2014.02.010
]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[
Oztaysi, B., Cevik Onar, S., Kahraman, C., & Yavuz, M. (2017). Multi-criteria alternative-fuel technology selection using interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 53, 128-148. doi: 10.1016/j.trd.2017.04.003
]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[
Peterseim, J. H., White, S., Tadros, A., & Hellwig, U. (2013). Concentrated solar power hybrid plants, which technologies are best suited for hybridisation? Renewable Energy, 57, 520-532. doi: 10.1016/j.renene.2013.02.014
]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[
Pohekar, S. D., & Ramachandran, M. (2004). Application of MCDM to sustainable energy planning – a review. Renewable Sustainable Energy Review, 8, 365-381. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2003.12.007
]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[
Ragavan, P., & Punniyamoorthy, M. (2003). A strategic decision model for the justification of technology selection. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 21(1), 72-78. doi: 10.1007/s001700300008
]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[
Ren, J., & Lützen, M. (2015). Fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making method for technology selection for emissions reduction from shipping under uncertainties. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 40, 43-60. doi: 10.1016/j.trd.2015.07.012
]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[
Rogalewicz, V., & Jurickova, I. (2014). Specificities of Medical Devices Affecting Health Technology Assessment Methodology. Proceedings IWBBIO 2014: International Work-Conference On Bioinformatics And Biomedical Engineering, 1-2, 1229-1234.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Saaty, T. (1980). The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning, Priority Setting, Resource Allocation. New York, USA: McGraw Hill.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Saaty, T. (2005). The Analytic Hierarchy and Analytic Network Processes for the Measurement for Intangible Criteria and for Decision-Making. In J. Figueira, S. Greco, & M. Ehrgott (Eds.), Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis. State of the Art Surveys, (pp. 345–408). New York, USA: Springer.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Sadr, S. M. K., Onder, T., Saroj, D., & Ouki, S. (2013). Appraisal of membrane processes for technology selection in centralized wastewater reuse scenarios. Sustainable Environment Research, 23(2), 69-78.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Saen, R. F. (2006). A decision model for technology selection in the existence of both cardinal and ordinal data. Applied Mathematics and Computation, 181(2), 1600-1608. doi: 10.1016/j.amc.2006.03.012
]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[
Salamirad, A., Kheybari, S., Ishizaka, A., & Farazmand, H. (2021). Wastewater treatment technology selection using a hybrid multicriteria decision-making method. International Transactions in Operational Research, article in press. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350691691_Wastewater_treatment_technology_selection_using_a_hybrid_multicriteria_decision-making_method
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Santos, F. A., & Garcia, R. (2010). Decision process model to the Health Technology incorporation. 2010 Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, EMBC’10, 5627344, 414-417. doi: 10.1109/IEMBS.2010.5627344
]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[
Savun, B., Erbay, B., Hekimoglu, M., & Burak, S. (2020). Evaluation of water supply alternatives for Istanbul using forecasting and multi-criteria decision making methods. Journal of Cleaner Production, 287, 125080. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125080
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Schmitz, S., et al. (2016). Identifying and Revealing the Importance of Decision-Making Criteria for Health Technology Assessment: A Retrospective Analysis of Reimbursement Recommendations in Ireland. Pharmacoeconomics, 34(9), 925-937. doi: 10.1007/s40273-016-0406-z
]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[
Schneberger, J. H., Kaspar, J., & Vielhaber, M. (2019). Integrated and customer-oriented material and process selection by sensory multi-criteria decision-making. Proceedings of the International Conference on Engineering Design, ICED, 1(1), 1175-1184. doi: 10.1017/dsi.2019.123
]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[
Scott, J. A., Ho, W., & Dey, P. K. (2012). A review of multi-criteria decision-making methods for bioenergy systems, Energy, 42(1), 146-156. doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2012.03.074
]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[
Shen, Y. C., Chang, S. H., Lin, G. T., & Yu, H. C. (2010). A hybrid selection model for emerging technology. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 77(1), 151-166. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2009.05.001
]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[
Si, J., Marjanovic-Halburd, L., Nasiri, F., & Bell, S. (2016). Assessment of building-integrated green technologies: A review and case study on applications of Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) method. Sustainable Cities and Society, 27, 106-115. doi: 10.1016/j.scs.2016.06.013
]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[
Siderska, J., & Jadaa, K. S. (2018). Cloud manufacturing: a service-oriented manufacturing paradigm. A review paper. Engineering Management in Production and Services, 10(1), 22-31. doi: 10.1515/emj-2018-0002
]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[
Siemieniako, D., Kubacki, K., & Mitręga, M. (2021). Inter-organisational relationships for social impact: A systematic literature review. Journal of Business Research, 132, 453-469. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.04.026
]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[
Singh, N., & Sushil (1990). Technology selection models for multi-stage production systems: Joint application of physical system theory and mathematical programming. European Journal of Operational Research, 47(2), 248-261. doi: 10.1016/0377-2217(90)90283-H
]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[
Stojanovic, C., Bogdanovic, D., & Urošević, S. (2015). Selection of the optimal technology for surface mining by multi-criteria analysis. Kuwait Journal of Science, 42, 170-190.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Štreimikiene, D. (2013). Assessment of energy technologies in electricity and transport sectors based on carbon intensity and costs. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 19(4), 606-620. doi: 10.3846/20294913.2013.837113
]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[
Streimikiene, D., & Balezentiene, L. (2012). Assessment of electricity generation technologies based on ghg emission reduction potential and costs. Transformations in Business and Economics, 11(2 A), 333-343.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Streimikiene, D., Baležentis, T., & Baležentiene, L. (2013). Comparative assessment of road transport technologies. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 20, 611-618. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2012.12.021
]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[
Sun, X., Yu, H., Solvang, W. D., Wang, Y., & Wang, K. (2022). The application of Industry 4.0 technologies in sustainable logistics: a systematic literature review (2012-2020) to explore future research opportunities. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(7), 9560-9591. doi: 10.1007/s11356-021-17693-y
]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[
Szpilko, D., & Ejdys, J. (2022). Europen Green Deal – research directions. Systematic literature review. Ekonomia i Srodowisko – Economics and Environment, 2(80), article in press.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Szpilko, D., Szydło, J., & Winkowska, J. (2020). Social Participation of City Inhabitants Versus Their Future Orientation. Evidence from Poland. WSEAS Transactions on Business and Economics, 17, 692-702. doi: 10.37394/23207.2020.17.67
]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[
Szum, K. (2021). IoT-based smart cities: a bibliometric analysis and literature review. Engineering Management in Production and Services, 13(2), 115-136. doi: 10.2478/emj-2021-0017
]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[
Tal, O., Booch, M., & Bar-Yehuda, S. (2019). Hospital staff perspectives towards health technology assessment: data from a multidisciplinary survey. Health Research Policy and Systems, 17, 72. doi: 10.1186/s12961-019-0469-3
]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[
Torkayesh, A. E., Malmir, B., & Rajabi Asadabadi, M. (2021). Sustainable waste disposal technology selection: The stratified best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method. Waste Management, 122, 100-112. doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2020.12.040
]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[
Turschwell, M. P., et al. (2022). A review of support tools to assess multi-sector interactions in the emerging offshore Blue Economy. Environmental Science and Policy, 133, 203-214. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2022.03.016
]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[
Tzeng, G. H., & Huang, J. J. (2011). Multiple Attribute Decision Making. Methods and Applications. London, UK: CRC Press.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
Tzeng, G. H., Lin, C. W., & Opricovic, S. (2005). Multi-criteria analysis of alternative-fuel buses for public transportation. Energy Policy, 33(11), 1373-1383. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2003.12.014
]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[
van Eck, N. J., & Waltman, L. (2017). Citation-based clustering of publications using CitNetExplorer and VOSviewer. Scientometrics, 111, 1053-1070. doi: 10.1007/s11192-017-2300-7
]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[
van Overbeeke, E., Forrester, V., Simoens, S., & Huys, I. (2021). Use of Patient Preferences in Health Technology Assessment: Perspectives of Canadian, Belgian and German HTA Representatives. Patient-Patient Centered Outcomes Research, 14(1), 119-128. doi: 10.1007/s40271-020-00449-0
]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[
Villegas, L. V., Salgado, J., Perilla, S. P., & Melo, J. (2020). Characterization of Medical Equipment Acquisition Processes by Considering the Evaluation of Technology, Pilot Case: POCT Blood Gas Analyzers. IFMBE Proceedings, 75, 1398-1402. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-30648-9_180
]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[
Vinodh, S., Nagaraj, S., & Girubha, J. (2014). Application of Fuzzy VIKOR for selection of rapid prototyping technologies in an agile environment. Rapid Prototyping Journal, 20(6), 523-532. doi: 10.1108/RPJ-07-2012-0060
]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[
Vivekh, P., Sudhakar, M., Srinivas, M., & Vishwanthkumar, V. (2016). Desalination technology selection using multi-criteria evaluation: TOPSIS and PROMETHEE-2. International Journal of Low-Carbon Technologies, 12, ctw001. doi: 10.1093/ijlct/ctw001
]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[
Wahlster, P. (2015). Exploring the perspectives and preferences for HTA across German healthcare stakeholders using a multi-criteria assessment of a pulmonary heart sensor as a case study. Health Research Policy and Systems, 13, 24. doi: 10.1186/s12961-015-0011-1
]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[
Wang, G., Tian, X., & Geng, J. (2014). Optimal selection method of process patents for technology transfer using fuzzy linguistic computing. Mathematical Problems in Engineering, 13, 1-10. doi: 10.1155/2014/107108
]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[
Winkowska, J., Szpilko, D., & Pejić, S. (2019). Smart city concept in the light of the literature review. Engineering Management in Production and Services, 11(2), 70-86. doi: 10.2478/emj-2019-0012
]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[
Xiao, F. (2018) A novel multi-criteria decision making method for assessing health-care waste treatment technologies based on D numbers. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 71, 216-225. doi: 10.1016/j.engappai.2018.03.002
]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[
Yalcin, A. S., Kilic, H. S., & Delen, D. (2022). The use of multi-criteria decision-making methods in business analytics: A comprehensive literature review. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 174, 121193. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121193
]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[
Yimen, N., & Dagbasi, M. (2019). Multi-attribute decision-making: Applying a modified Brown–Gibson model and RETScreen software to the optimal location process of utility-scale photovoltaic plants. Processes, 7(8), 505. doi: 10.3390/pr7080505
]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[
Zanakis, S. H., Solomon, A., Wishart N., & Dublish, S. (1998). Multi-attribute decision making: A simulation comparison of select methods. European Journal of Operational Research, 107(3), 507-529. doi: 10.1016/S0377-2217(97)00147-1
]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[
Zelei, T., Mendola, N. D., Elezbawy, B., Nemeth, B., & Campbell, J. D. (2021). Criteria and Scoring Functions Used in Multi-criteria Decision Analysis and Value Frameworks for the Assessment of Rare Disease Therapies: A Systematic Literature Review. Pharmacoeconomics-Open, 5(4), 605-612. doi: 10.1007/s41669-021-00271-w
]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar
[
Zhang, C. H., Chen, C., Streimikiene, D., & Balezentis, T. (2019). Intuitionistic fuzzy MULTIMOORA approach for multi-criteria assessment of the energy storage technologies. Applied Soft Computing, 79, 410-423. doi: 10.1016/j.asoc.2019.04.008
]Open DOISearch in Google Scholar