Emerging Trends and Research Insights in Fuzzy Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Applications for Logistics Location Selection: A Comprehensive Bibliometric Analysis (1982-2025)

Emre Kadir Özekenci; Kübra Topcuoglu Onat; Süreyya Yilmaz Özekenci

doi:10.31181/sor202772

Authors

Emre Kadir Özekenci Department of International Trade and Logistics, Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, Çağ University, Mersin, Türkiye Author https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6669-0006
Kübra Topcuoglu Onat Department of International Trade and Logistics, Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, Çağ University, Mersin, Türkiye Author https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8702-9954
Süreyya Yilmaz Özekenci Department of Banking and Insurance, Vocational School, Çağ University, Mersin, Türkiye Author https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4150-4101

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.31181/sor202772

Keywords:

Bibliometrics, Fuzzy MCDM, MCDM, Logistics, Location selection, WoS

Abstract

Selecting an appropriate location is a pivotal decision in logistics. Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) methods have gained considerable attention for their effectiveness in identifying optimal logistics sites. This paper explores the evolution, applications, and prospects of Fuzzy MCDM methods in logistics location selection. Through an extensive bibliometric analysis of 35,566 relevant papers sourced from the Web of Science (WoS) database spanning 1982 to 2025, this study uncovers key trends, influential authors, major institutions, and the geographical distribution of research contributions, employing tools such as VOSviewer 1.6.20. The findings indicate that China has established itself as the leading country in terms of published papers. At the same time, Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas emerges as the most prolific author in this bibliometric review. The United Kingdom is highlighted for its robust international co-authorship networks. Additionally, King Abdulaziz University is recognized as a significant institution fostering global collaborations, with Zavadskas noted as a central figure in the author collaboration network. Moreover, the journal IEEE Access is the most frequently cited publication outlet for related work. Commonly used key terms among authors include decision making, machine learning, and fuzzy logic. The findings also indicate that the most frequently discussed topics related to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure, followed by Sustainable Cities and Communities and Well-being and Health. This study offers a comprehensive overview of research on Fuzzy MCDM methods for logistics location selection, providing valuable insights for future research directions in this rapidly evolving field.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Zadeh, L. A. (1965). Fuzzy sets. Information and control, 8(3), 338-353. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0019-9958(65)90241-X

Wu, H. Y., Tzeng, G. H., & Chen, Y. H. (2009). A fuzzy MCDM approach for evaluating banking performance based on Balanced Scorecard. Expert systems with applications, 36(6), 10135-10147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2009.01.005

Chu, T. C., & Lin, Y. (2009). An extension to fuzzy MCDM. Computers & Mathematics with Applications, 57(3), 445-454. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.camwa.2008.10.076

Tsaur, S. H., Chang, T. Y., & Yen, C. H. (2002). The evaluation of airline service quality by fuzzy MCDM. Tourism management, 23(2), 107-115. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0261-5177(01)00050-4

Petrović, G., Mihajlović, J., Ćojbašić, Ž., Madić, M., & Marinković, D. (2019). Comparison of three fuzzy MCDM methods for solving the supplier selection problem. Facta Universitatis, Series: Mechanical Engineering, 17(3), 455-469. https://doi.org/10.22190/FUME190420039P

Chen, V. Y., Lien, H. P., Liu, C. H., Liou, J. J., Tzeng, G. H., & Yang, L. S. (2011). Fuzzy MCDM approach for selecting the best environment-watershed plan. Applied soft computing, 11(1), 265-275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2009.11.017

Kharat, M. G., Kamble, S. J., Raut, R. D., Kamble, S. S., & Dhume, S. M. (2016). Modeling landfill site selection using an integrated fuzzy MCDM approach. Modeling Earth Systems and Environment, 2(2), 53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40808-016-0106-x

Bapat, H., Sarkar, D., & Gujar, R. (2021). Application of integrated fuzzy FCM-BIM-IoT for sustainable material selection and energy management of metro rail station box project in western India. Innovative Infrastructure Solutions, 6(2), 73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41062-020-00431-7

Sahoo, S. K., & Goswami, S. S. (2023). A comprehensive review of multiple criteria decision-making (MCDM) methods: advancements, applications, and future directions. Decision Making Advances, 1(1), 25-48. https://doi.org/10.31181/dma1120237

Uyanik, C., Tuzkaya, G., Kalender, Z. T., & Oguztimur, S. (2020). An integrated DEMATEL–IF-TOPSIS methodology for logistics centers’ location selection problem: an application for Istanbul Metropolitan area. Transport, 35(6), 548-556. https://doi.org/10.3846/transport.2020.12210

Żak, J., & Węgliński, S. (2014). The selection of the logistics center location based on MCDM/A methodology. Transportation Research Procedia, 3, 555-564. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2014.10.034

Făgărăşan, M., & Cristea, C. (2015). Logistics center location: Selection using multicriteria decision making. Annals of the Oradea University Fascicle of Management and Technological Engineering, 157-162.

Ulutaş, A., Karakuş, C. B., & Topal, A. (2020). Location selection for logistics center with fuzzy SWARA and CoCoSo methods. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, 38(4), 4693-4709. https://doi.org/10.3233/JIFS-191400

Chithambaranathan, P., Rajkumar, A., Prithiviraj, D., & Palpandi, M. (2022). A multi criteria decision-based approach for facility location selection with flexible criteria weights. Materials Today: Proceedings, 62, 1215-1217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2022.04.467

Topaloğlu, F. (2024). Development of a new hybrid method for multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) approach: a case study for facility location selection. Operational Research, 24(4), 60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12351-024-00871-4

Ding, J. F., & Chou, C. C. (2013). An Evaluation Model of Quantitative and Qualitative Fuzzy Multi‐Criteria Decision‐Making Approach for Location Selection of Transshipment Ports. Mathematical Problems in Engineering, 2013(1), 783105. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/783105

Uyanık, C., Tuzkaya, G., & Oğuztimur, S. (2018). A Literature Survey on Logistics Centers Location Selection Problem. Sigma Journal of Engineering and Natural Sciences, 36(1), 141-160. https://izlik.org/JA56TR36PG

Wang, M. H., Lee, H. S., & Chu, C. W. (2010). Evaluation of logistic distribution center selection using the fuzzy MCDM approach. International Journal of Innovative Computing, Information and Control, 6(12), 5785-5796.

Deng, Y., & Chan, F. T. (2011). A new fuzzy dempster MCDM method and its application in supplier selection. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(8), 9854-9861. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2011.02.017

Abdulgader, F. S., Eid, R., & Daneshvar Rouyendegh, B. (2018). Development of decision support model for selecting a maintenance plan using a fuzzy MCDM approach: a theoretical framework. Applied Computational Intelligence and Soft Computing, 2018(1), 9346945. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/9346945

Diaby, V., Campbell, K., & Goeree, R. (2013). Multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) in health care: A bibliometric analysis. Operations research for health care, 2(1-2), 20-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orhc.2013.03.001

Francik, S., Pedrycz, N., Knapczyk, A., Wójcik, A., Francik, R., & Łapczyńska-Kordon, B. (2017). Bibliometric analysis of multiple criteria decision making in agriculture. Technical Sciences/University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn, 20(1), 17-30.

Koca, G., & Yıldırım, S. (2021). Bibliometric analysis of DEMATEL method. Decision Making: Applications in Management and Engineering, 4(1), 85-103. https://doi.org/10.31181/dmame2104085g

Costa, I. P. D. A., Costa, A. P. D. A., Sanseverino, A. M., Gomes, C. F. S., & Santos, M. D. (2022). Bibliometric studies on multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) methods applied in military problems. Pesquisa Operacional, 42, e249414. https://doi.org/10.1590/0101-7438.2022.042.00249414

Alamoodi, A. H., Zaidan, B. B., Albahri, O. S., Garfan, S., Ahmaro, I. Y., Mohammed, R. T., ... & Malik, R. Q. (2023). Systematic review of MCDM approach applied to the medical case studies of COVID-19: trends, bibliographic analysis, challenges, motivations, recommendations, and future directions. Complex & intelligent systems, 9(4), 4705-4731. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40747-023-00972-1

Khulud, K., Masudin, I., Zulfikarijah, F., Restuputri, D. P., & Haris, A. (2023). Sustainable supplier selection through multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) approach: a bibliometric analysis. Logistics, 7(4), 96. https://doi.org/10.3390/logistics7040096

Sahoo, S. K., Choudhury, B. B., & Dhal, P. R. (2024). A bibliometric analysis of material selection using MCDM methods: trends and insights. Spectrum of mechanical engineering and operational research, 1(1), 189-205. https://doi.org/10.31181/smeor11202417

Demir, G., Chatterjee, P., & Pamucar, D. (2024a). Sensitivity analysis in multi-criteria decision making: A state-of-the-art research perspective using bibliometric analysis. Expert Systems with Applications, 237, 121660. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2023.121660

Srivastava, S., Tripathi, A., & Arora, N. (2024). Multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) in diverse domains of education: a comprehensive bibliometric analysis for research directions. International Journal of System Assurance Engineering and Management, 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13198-024-02332-9

Demir, G., Chatterjee, P., Kadry, S., Abdelhadi, A., & Pamučar, D. (2024b). Measurement of alternatives and ranking according to compromise solution (MARCOS) method: a comprehensive bibliometric analysis. Decision making: applications in management and engineering, 7(2), 313-336. https://doi.org/10.31181/dmame7220241137

Ranjan, R., Rajak, S., Chatterjee, P., & Kadry, S. (2025a). Evaluation Based on Distance from Average Solution (EDAS) Method: A Bibliometric Analysis. Bibliometric Analyses in Data‐Driven Decision‐Making, 223-255. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781394302581.ch8

Ranjan, R., Rajak, S., & Chatterjee, P. (2025b). Multi‐Criteria Decision‐Making Methods for Robot Selection: A Bibliometric Analysis of Research Trends. Bibliometric Analyses in Data‐Driven Decision‐Making, 137-168. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781394302581.ch5

Sahoo, S. K., Choudhury, B. B., Dhal, P. R., & Hanspal, M. S. (2025). A comprehensive review of multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) toward sustainable renewable energy development. Spectrum of Operational Research, 2(1), 268-284. https://doi.org/10.31181/sor21202527

Aktas Potur, E., Aktas, A., & Kabak, M. (2025). A Bibliometric Analysis of Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Techniques in Disaster Management and Transportation in Emergencies: Towards Sustainable Solutions. Sustainability, 17(6), 2644. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17062644

Kumar, R., & Pamucar, D. (2025). A comprehensive and systematic review of multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) methods to solve decision-making problems: two decades from 2004 to 2024. Spectrum of Decision Making and Applications, 2(1), 178-197. https://doi.org/10.31181/sdmap21202524

Present Study (2026)

Veljić, A., Viduka, D., Ilić, L., Šijan, A., & Karabašević, D. (2026). Trends and Networks in the Application of MCDM Methods in Computer Science: Analysis of the Web of Science Database. International Journal of Electrical and Computer Engineering Systems, 17(3), 241-255. https://doi.org/10.32985/ijeces.17.3.6

Sahoo, S. K., Choudhury, B. B., & Dhal, P. R. (2027). A Comprehensive Review of Fuzzy Multiple Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) Methods: Advancements, Applications, and Future Directions. Spectrum of Decision Making and Applications. https://doi.org/10.31181/sdmap41202764

Çiğdem, A. G. K., Dikmen, A. U., & Özkan, S. (2023). Bibliyometrik analize genel bir bakış. Turkey Health Literacy Journal, 4(3), 112-116. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10527535

Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a methodology for developing evidence‐informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British journal of management, 14(3), 207-222. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.00375

Donthu, N., Kumar, S., Mukherjee, D., Pandey, N., Lim, W. M. (2021). How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: An overview and guidelines. Journal of business research, 133, 285-296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.04.070

Birkle, C., Pendlebury, D. A., Schnell, J., & Adams, J. (2020). Web of Science as a data source for research on scientific and scholarly activity. Quantitative science studies, 1(1), 363-376. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00018

Mongeon, P., & Paul-Hus, A. (2016). The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: a comparative analysis. Scientometrics, 106(1), 213-228. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1765-5

Van Eck, N., & Waltman, L. (2010). Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. scientometrics, 84(2), 523-538. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3

Chen, C. (2006). CiteSpace II: Detecting and visualizing emerging trends and transient patterns in scientific literature. Journal of the American Society for information Science and Technology, 57(3), 359-377. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20317

Su, H. N., & Lee, P. C. (2010). Mapping knowledge structure by keyword co-occurrence: A first look at journal papers in Technology Foresight. scientometrics, 85(1), 65-79. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-010-0259-8

Zupic, I., & Čater, T. (2015). Bibliometric methods in management and organization. Organizational research methods, 18(3), 429-472. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428114562629

Newman, M. E. (2001). The structure of scientific collaboration networks. Proceedings of the national academy of sciences, 98(2), 404-409. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.98.2.404

Acedo, F. J., Barroso, C., Casanueva, C., & Galán, J. L. (2006). Co‐authorship in management and organizational studies: An empirical and network analysis. Journal of management studies, 43(5), 957-983. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2006.00625.x

Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H. D. (2008). What do citation counts measure? A review of studies on citing behavior. Journal of documentation, 64(1), 45-80. https://doi.org/10.1108/00220410810844150

Al-Fuqaha, A., Guizani, M., Mohammadi, M., Aledhari, M., & Ayyash, M. (2015). Internet of things: A survey on enabling technologies, protocols, and applications. IEEE communications surveys & tutorials, 17(4), 2347-2376. https://doi.org/10.1109/COMST.2015.2444095

Lusardi, A., & Mitchell, O. S. (2014). The economic importance of financial literacy: Theory and evidence. American Economic Journal: Journal of Economic Literature, 52(1), 5-44. https://doi.org/10.1257/jel.52.1.5

Janiesch, C., Zschech, P., & Heinrich, K. (2021). Machine learning and deep learning. Electronic markets, 31(3), 685-695. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-021-00475-2

Ellegaard, O., & Wallin, J. A. (2015). The bibliometric analysis of scholarly production: How great is the impact?. Scientometrics, 105(3), 1809-1831. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1645-z

Tennant, J. P., Waldner, F., Jacques, D. C., Masuzzo, P., Collister, L. B., & Hartgerink, C. H. (2016). The academic, economic and societal impacts of Open Access: an evidence-based review. F1000Research, 5, 632. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.8460.3