Analyzing the impact of the organization of Turkic states on the foreign trade of member countries

Figures & data

Figure 1. Proportional representation of intra-organizational bilateral trade as a percentage of the overall trade volume and total trade volume measured in thousand dollars among member countries.

Figure 2. Share of total exports and imports of the four-member Turkic states between 1999–2019.

Figure 3. Total exports from organization of Turkic states members in 2019 and top partners with shares of more than $4B.

Table 1. Sample studies using TOPSIS in different decision making processes between 2015 and 2023

Authors	Year	Criteria	Models	Aim and Conclusions
Sakthivel et al. (2015)	2015	Emission, combustion, efficiency	ANP, TOPSIS, VIKOR	In order to determine the best bio-diesel mixture according to 3 criteria, 6 different mixtures were ranked.
Yanık and Eren (2017)	2017	Current ratio, liquidity ratio, total liabilities/total liabilities, tangible fixed assets(net)/equity, net sales/total Assets, net sales/fixed assets(net), period net profit/net sales, period net profit/equity, period, net profit/total assets	TOPSIS, VIKOR, ELECTRE	The financial performances of 11 alternatives (automotive manufacturing companies) between 2011–2015 were evaluated according to nine selected criteria, and their performances were listed.
Masca et al. (2017)	2017	Long-term interest rates, general government deficit and surplus, general government gross debt, inflation rate, gross fixed capital formation, unemployment rate	TOPSIS	Economic performance evaluation EU Countries had been made by six macro-economic data of 28 EU countries.
Lupo and Bellomo (2019)	2019	Tangibles, reliability, sensitivity, assurance, empathy	TOPSIS, DINESERV	Under five main headings, 29 criteria were determined. A comparison was made in terms of application and service quality of three restaurants.
Micale et al. (2019)	2019	Space, weight, demand, profitability, popularity	TOPSIS	Alternatives regarding the restructuring of the warehouse were evaluated according to five criteria.
Memari et al. (2019)	2019	Cost, product quality, service performance, environmental efficiency, green image, pollution reduction, green competence, safety and health, employment practices	TOPSIS	Thirty sub-criteria were determined under nine main criteria. According to these criteria, among the 36 alternatives, the alternatives were evaluated and ranked to ensure sustainable supply.
Sarkar et al. (2020)	2020	Price, length, width, engine, brakes, suspension, technology, safety, performance, fuel tank capacity and seat capacity	TOPSIS, AHP	In order to choose the best family car, 12 alternatives were evaluated according to 11 criteria. The views of family members were used to weight the criteria.
Aktaş and Demirel (2021)	2021	Some of the 33 criteria grouped under economic, environmental and social titles are: revenue, operating profit, equity, export earnings, electricity, natural gas, solid fuel consumption, wastewater, CO2 emissions, personnel job satisfaction rate, total number of personnel, average personnel age, actual average personnel	VIKOR, TOPSIS, MAUT	Thirty-three criteria were determined under three main headings. The company’s data between 2013 and 2018 were analyzed under these criteria.
Avikal et al. (2021)	2021	Cost, density, tensile strength, hardness, melting point	AHP, TOPSIS	According to determined criteria, which metal composite would be more effective to use was determined.
Hezer et al. (2021)	2021	Quarantine efficiency, government effectiveness of risk management, monitoring and detection, emergency preparedness, health care readiness, regional resilience	TOPSIS, VIKOR, COPRAS	The authors evaluated the countries by six criteria. Despite the COVID-19 epidemic, the efficiency levels of the countries were determined.
Kilic and Yalcin (2021)	2021	Water, air, energy, land utilization, transportation, recycling and waste disposal, infrastructure, buildings	AHP, TOPSIS	Twenty-five criteria were determined under eight main headings. In line with these criteria, 10 municipalities of Istanbul were rated in terms of environmental sustainability.
Bulut and Şimşek (n.d..)	2022	Current ratio, quick ratio, total debt/total assets, profitability of equity, assets profitability, net profit margin, equity/total assets, total debt/equity, net profit/total assets, current asset turnover rate	TOPSIS	10 criteria were determined to evaluate the financial performance of 19 Technology Turkish enterprises traded on the Istanbul Stock Exchange (BIST).

Table 2. Sample studies using TOPSIS continues

Authors	Year	Criteria	Models	Aim and Conclusions
Watrobski et al. (2022)	2022	Overcrowding rate, population suffering from disturbances, settlement area per capita, people who died in road accidents, exposure to air pollution, municipal waste recycled, the population living in devastated houses, secondary waste water treatment supply, accessibility of public transport and crime, violence or vandalism occurring in the population	DARIA - TOPSIS	The authors assessed sustainable cities and communities in 26 European countries based on 10 criteria which were determined in terms of economic, environmental, and social aspects.
Sonmez et al. (2023)	2023	Current ratio, receivable turnover ratio, short-term debt/total debt ratio, trade payable turnover ratio, return on assets ratio, net profit margin ratio, operating profit margin ratio, debt leverage ratio, earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortization, return on equity ratio	TOPSIS	5 energy companies traded in BIST in 2021 were considered for evaluation of their financial performance based on 10 criteria.
Current Study	2023	Total exports, total imports, exports to Turkic states, imports from the Turkic states, Turkic states’ export share, Turkic states’ import share	TOPSIS	Foreign trade data of four states between 2000–2019 were evaluated according to six criteria and ranked based on their foreign trade performances.

Table 3. Descriptive statistics of trade data from six Turkic states and Tajikistan used in gravity analysis

Variable	Description	Mean	Median	Maximum	Minimum	Std. Dev.	Skewness	Kurtosis
$EX$	The monetary worth of exported goods, measured in thousands of US dollars	274501.60	89719.73	3229013	9.35	466717.60	3.00	13.65
$GDP$	The GDP value of the country quantified in billions of US dollars	145.13	344.27	957.78	0.86	254.46	2.09	5.98
$POP$	The size of the population in the country	21991160	9416801	83481684	4569132	24220187	1.53	3.78
$AREA$	The land area of the country measured in thousands of square kilometers	748.19	447.40	2725	86.60	904.20	1.54	3.72
$DIST$	Great circle distance between exporter and importer countries in kilometers	1802.88	1624.28	3461.65	479.72	876.36	0.46	−0.83
$LAND$	Distance between languages talked in exporter and importer countries (Beaufils & Tomin, 2020)	27.54	16.75	80.0	2.50	26.81	1.10	2.57
$BORDER$	Dummy variable where 1 if there is a border between exporter and importer countries	0.28	0	1	0	0.45	0.99	−1.05
$MEMBER$	Dummy variable where 1 if both exporter and importer countries are OTS members	0.17	0	1	0	0.37	1.79	4.20

Figure 4. Trade volumes within the four members of OTS with a display of the exponential regression trend line.

Table 4. Pearson correlation coefficients representing the trade data analysis of six Turkic states and Tajikistan for gravity analysis. Statistical significance is indicated by ${ }^{\ast \ast }$ and ${ }^{\ast }$, denoting significance levels of 1% and 5% respectively

	$\mathit{l}nEX$	$\mathit{l}nGD{P}_i$	$\mathit{l}nGD{P}_j$	$\mathit{l}nPO{P}_i$	$\mathit{l}nPO{P}_j$	$\mathit{l}nARE{A}_i$	$\mathit{l}nARE{A}_j$	$\mathit{l}nDIST$	$\mathit{l}nLAND$	$\mathit{B}ORDER$	$\mathit{M}EMBER$
$lnEX$	-
	-
$lnGD{P}_i$	0.46${ }^{\ast \ast }$	-
	(0.00)	-
$lnGD{P}_j$	0.30${ }^{\ast \ast }$	−0.01	-
	(0.00)	(0.75)	-
$lnPO{P}_i$	0.19${ }^{\ast \ast }$	0.27${ }^{\ast \ast }$	−0.04${ }^{\ast \ast }$	-
	(0.00)	(0.00)	(0.00)	-
$lnPO{P}_j$	0.14${ }^{\ast \ast }$	−0.04${ }^{\ast \ast }$	0.27${ }^{\ast \ast }$	−0.02${ }^{\ast \ast }$	-
	(0.00)	(0.00)	(0.00)	(0.00)	-
$lnARE{A}_i$	0.24${ }^{\ast \ast }$	0.22${ }^{\ast \ast }$	−0.04${ }^{\ast \ast }$	0.10${ }^{\ast \ast }$	−0.02${ }^{\ast }$	-
	(0.00)	(0.00)	(0.01)	(0.00)	(0.02)	-
$lnARE{A}_j$	0.14${ }^{\ast \ast }$	−0.04${ }^{\ast \ast }$	0.22${ }^{\ast \ast }$	−0.02${ }^{\ast }$	0.10${ }^{\ast \ast }$	−0.04${ }^{\ast \ast }$	-
	(0.00)	(0.01)	(0.00)	(0.02)	(0.00)	(0.00)	-
$lnDIST$	0.03${ }^{\ast \ast }$	0.07${ }^{\ast \ast }$	0.07${ }^{\ast \ast }$	0.03${ }^{\ast \ast }$	0.03${ }^{\ast \ast }$	0.02${ }^{\ast \ast }$	0.02${ }^{\ast \ast }$	-
	(0.00)	(0.00)	(0.00)	(0.00)	(0.00)	(0.00)	(0.00)	-
$lnLAND$	−0.15${ }^{\ast \ast }$	−0.05${ }^{\ast \ast }$	−0.05${ }^{\ast \ast }$	−0.01${ }^{\ast \ast }$	−0.01	−0.03${ }^{\ast \ast }$	−0.03${ }^{\ast \ast }$	0.04${ }^{\ast \ast }$	-
	(0.00)	(0.00)	(0.00)	(0.35)	(0.35)	(0.00)	(0.00)	(0.00)	-
$BORDER$	0.05${ }^{\ast \ast }$	−0.07${ }^{\ast \ast }$	−0.07${ }^{\ast \ast }$	−0.03${ }^{\ast \ast }$	−0.03${ }^{\ast \ast }$	0.04${ }^{\ast \ast }$	0.04${ }^{\ast \ast }$	−0.07${ }^{\ast \ast }$	−0.04${ }^{\ast \ast }$	-
	(0.00)	(0.00)	(0.00)	(0.00)	(0.00)	(0.00)	(0.00)	(0.00)	(0.00)	-
$MEMBER$	0.08${ }^{\ast \ast }$	0.07${ }^{\ast \ast }$	0.07${ }^{\ast \ast }$	0.02${ }^{\ast \ast }$	0.02${ }^{\ast \ast }$	0.01	0.01	0.02${ }^{\ast \ast }$	−0.02${ }^{\ast \ast }$	−0.02${ }^{\ast \ast }$	-
	(0.00)	(0.00)	(0.00)	(0.01)	(0.01)	(0.25)	(0.25)	(0.00)	(0.00)	(0.00)	-

Table 5. OLS results for the gravity model where the dependent variable is lnEX

Variable	Coefficient	Std. Error	Prob
$lnGD{P}_i$	0.473	0.051	0.00
$lnGD{P}_j$	0.104	0.051	0.04
$lnPO{P}_i$	0.499	0.092	0.00
$lnPO{P}_j$	0.946	0.090	0.00
$lnARE{A}_i$	0.607	0.055	0.00
$lnARE{A}_j$	0.442	0.055	0.00
$lnDIS{T}_{ij}$	−1.451	0.155	0.00
$lnLAN{D}_{ij}$	−0.153	0.049	0.00
$BORDE{R}_{ij}$	−0.062	0.071	0.39
$MEMBE{R}_{ij}$	0.206	0.056	0.00
$C$	−12.670	0.540	0.00
R^2	0.732	Adjusted R^2	0.728

Table 6. PPML result for the gravity model where dependent variable is integer EX

Variable	Coefficient	Std. Error	Prob
$lnGD{P}_i$	0.965	0.090	0.00
$lnGD{P}_j$	0.981	0.083	0.00
$lnPO{P}_i$	0.877	0.134	0.00
$lnPO{P}_j$	0.690	0.126	0.00
$lnARE{A}_i$	0.954	0.095	0.00
$lnARE{A}_j$	0.250	0.093	0.01
$lnDIS{T}_{ij}$	−2.553	0.296	0.00
$lnLAN{D}_{ij}$	−0.597	0.092	0.00
$BORDE{R}_{ij}$	−0.225	0.132	0.09
$MEMBE{R}_{ij}$	0.120	0.058	0.04
$C$	−17.933	0.947	0.00
R^2	0.767	Adjusted R^2	0.764

Table 7. The steps of the TOPSIS algorithm for the years 2000–2009 and 2010–2019 where the criteria were determined as exports to Turkic states (A1), imports from Turkic states (A2), the percentage share of exports to Turkic states in all exports (A3), and the percentage share of imports from Turkic states in all imports (A4)

	2000–2009				2010–2019
	Benefit	Cost	Benefit	Benefit	Benefit	Cost	Benefit	Benefit
State	A1	A2	A3	A4	A1	A2	A3	A4
Decision matrix $A_{ij}$
Turkey	12396545.18	9160337.791	1.757358897	0.845827115	31549537.62	18789249.13	2.09919962	0.842650418
Azerbaijan	3750259.905	5292450.593	4.091633214	13.61163801	11546041.1	15284763.42	5.841110191	15.68025172
Kazakhstan	8519546.929	6073197.907	2.958086881	3.394200837	26609166.53	10936921.87	4.082066534	3.089278433
Kyrgyzstan	1302354.97	2413626.809	16.00437968	15.5239069	3811223.979	7422007.591	22.20229725	15.75242459
Normalized and equally weighted decision matrix $V_{ij}$
Turkey	0.199212786	0.184163265	0.026037022	0.010097983	0.183315668	0.170236915	0.022415672	0.009381212
Azerbaijan	0.060266769	0.106401642	0.060621622	0.162503763	0.067087203	0.138485096	0.06237254	0.174567962
Kazakhstan	0.136909329	0.122098113	0.043827004	0.040521972	0.154610099	0.09909219	0.043589121	0.034392881
Kyrgyzstan	0.020928876	0.048524564	0.237120826	0.185333557	0.022144764	0.067245884	0.237080561	0.175371461
Positive ideal, $A^{+}$ and negative ideal, $A^{-}$, solutions
$A^{+}$	0.199212786	0.048524564	0.237120826	0.185333557	0.183315668	0.067245884	0.237080561	0.175371461
$A^{-}$	0.020928876	0.184163265	0.026037022	0.010097983	0.022144764	0.170236915	0.022415672	0.009381212
	${\mathit{S}}_i^{+}$		${\mathit{S}}_i^{-}$		${\mathit{S}}_i^{+}$		${\mathit{S}}_i^{-}$
Separation measures $S_i^{+}$ and $S_i^{-}$
Turkey	0.306042049		0.17828391		0.29024288		0.161170904
Azerbaijan	0.233085651		0.17893562		0.22160239		0.178637102
Kazakhstan	0.260053235		0.136182418		0.243212035		0.15389131
Kyrgyzstan	0.17828391		0.306042049		0.161170904		0.29024288
	2000–2009				2010–2019
Relative closeness $C_i$
State	Rank		${\mathit{C}}_i$		Rank		${\mathit{C}}_i$
Turkey	2		0.631892723		1		0.642964151
Azerbaijan	3		0.565712664		3		0.553674473
Kazakhstan	1		0.656309529		2		0.612465339
Kyrgyzstan	4		0.368107277		4		0.357035849

Table 8. The steps of the TOPSIS algorithm for the yearly comparison between 2000–2019 for Turkey

	Benefit	Cost	Benefit	Cost	Benefit	Benefit
Year	B1	B2	B3	B4	B5	B6
Decision matrix $A_{ij}$
2000	27485359.10	54149795.28	366168.60	444297.67	1.33	0.82
2001	31333944.40	41399079.44	362359.20	174725.14	1.16	0.42
2002	35761981.31	51270195.62	409486.44	280960.27	1.15	0.55
2003	47252836.30	69339692.06	590344.09	400151.18	1.25	0.58
2004	63120948.80	97539765.97	834233.96	591114.40	1.32	0.61
2005	73476408.14	116774150.91	1077551.06	845269.20	1.47	0.72
2006	85534675.52	139576174.15	1524282.42	1361663.95	1.78	0.98
2007	107271749.90	170062714.50	2308865.81	1658716.43	2.15	0.98
2008	132027195.63	201963574.11	2749387.75	2271939.74	2.08	1.12
2009	102142612.60	140928421.21	2173865.86	1131499.81	2.13	0.80
2010	113883219.18	185544331.85	2498580.10	1675952.21	2.19	0.90
2011	134906868.83	240841676.27	3192058.67	2309500.86	2.37	0.96
2012	152461736.56	236545140.91	3910766.45	2441247.90	2.57	1.03
2013	151802637.09	251661250.11	4388126.80	2130826.33	2.89	0.85
2014	157610157.69	242177117.07	4273526.26	1593198.69	2.71	0.66
2015	143850376.39	207206508.91	2943573.81	1419065.57	2.05	0.68
2016	142529583.81	198618235.05	2217775.17	1473095.07	1.56	0.74
2017	156992940.41	233799651.23	2446843.59	1957822.02	1.56	0.84
2018	168023390.68	223039038.05	2547305.76	1896318.47	1.52	0.85
2019	180870841.00	210346890.00	2873380.00	1892222.00	1.59	0.90
	Benefit	Cost	Benefit	Cost	Benefit	Benefit
Year	B1	B2	B3	B4	B5	B6
Normalized and equally weighted decision matrix $V_{ij}$
2000	0.008499892	0.011226879	0.00543167	0.010579391	0.02595674	0.037353744
2001	0.009690073	0.008583272	0.00537516	0.004160466	0.02253174	0.01921417
2002	0.011059451	0.010629851	0.00607424	0.006690083	0.02230943	0.024948065
2003	0.014613017	0.0143762	0.00875704	0.009528197	0.02434152	0.026272362
2004	0.019520256	0.020222922	0.01237485	0.014075316	0.02575045	0.027589686
2005	0.022722699	0.024210788	0.01598417	0.020127121	0.0285733	0.032953781
2006	0.026451738	0.028938332	0.02261088	0.032423251	0.03472111	0.044413558
2007	0.033173964	0.035259107	0.03424923	0.039496514	0.04193569	0.044403782
2008	0.040829626	0.041873114	0.04078384	0.054098276	0.04057355	0.051213055
2009	0.03158777	0.029218694	0.03224667	0.026942699	0.04146639	0.036552141
2010	0.035218571	0.038468912	0.03706341	0.039906924	0.04274684	0.041121681
2011	0.041720169	0.049933712	0.04735033	0.054992663	0.04610067	0.043655946
2012	0.047149041	0.049042911	0.05801149	0.058129757	0.04997715	0.046984518
2013	0.046945213	0.052176934	0.06509255	0.050738155	0.05632099	0.038546826
2014	0.048741198	0.050210589	0.06339259	0.037936439	0.05282903	0.029949788
2015	0.044485964	0.042960131	0.04366435	0.033790069	0.03986891	0.031178555
2016	0.044077506	0.041179524	0.03289801	0.035076593	0.03031677	0.033765142
2017	0.048550323	0.048473688	0.03629596	0.046618665	0.03036662	0.03812293
2018	0.051961508	0.04624269	0.0377862	0.045154173	0.02953805	0.038706804
2019	0.055934603	0.043611227	0.04262311	0.04505663	0.03095244	0.040953678
Positive ideal, $A^{+}$, and negative ideal, $A^{-}$, solutions
	B1	B2	B3	B4	B5	B6
$A^{+}$	0.055934603	0.008583272	0.06509255	0.004160466	0.05632099	0.051213055
$A^{-}$	0.008499892	0.052176934	0.00537516	0.058129757	0.02230943	0.01921417
Year	${\mathit{S}}_i^{+}$			${\mathit{S}}_i^{-}$
Separation measures ${\mathit{S}}_i^{+}$ and ${\mathit{S}}_i^{-}$
2000	0.083497			0.065424
2001	0.088715			0.069387
2002	0.085756			0.066424
2003	0.081168			0.0624
2004	0.076365			0.056695
2005	0.071534			0.052623
2006	0.066331			0.051081
2007	0.060687			0.055638
2008	0.06833			0.061473
2009	0.055246			0.058502
2010	0.060596			0.055997
2011	0.070514			0.063591
2012	0.068812			0.076229
2013	0.065659			0.081421
2014	0.058246			0.080273
2015	0.057637			0.062369
2016	0.064622			0.054328
2017	0.071573			0.055936
2018	0.068803			0.059793
2019	0.064445			0.066551

Table 9. Relative closeness $C_i$ for alternative years for Turkey

Top			Least
Rank	Year	${\mathit{C}}_i$	Rank	Year	${\mathit{C}}_i$
1	2014	0.579508007	11	2018	0.464967
2	2013	0.553582394	12	2016	0.456728
3	2012	0.52556782	13	2000	0.43932
4	2015	0.519718218	14	2001	0.438875
5	2009	0.514312548	15	2017	0.438682
6	2019	0.50803908	16	2002	0.436481
7	2010	0.48027782	17	2006	0.435056
8	2007	0.478300483	18	2003	0.434637
9	2011	0.474188917	19	2004	0.426086
10	2008	0.473584665	20	2005	0.42384

Table 10. Relative closeness $C_i$ for alternative years for Azerbaijan

Top			Least
Rank	Year	$C_i$	Rank	Year	$C_i$
1	2019	0.548997757	11	2006	0.337738
2	2007	0.498297401	12	2005	0.32925
3	2008	0.48039465	13	2003	0.326489
4	2018	0.439877637	14	2004	0.319075
5	2015	0.426822399	15	2011	0.298822
6	2017	0.402564172	16	2012	0.298287
7	2016	0.372812146	17	2010	0.296868
8	2000	0.364640575	18	2014	0.277632
9	2002	0.344591859	19	2013	0.275274
10	2001	0.3414766	20	2009	0.274977

Table 11. Relative closeness $C_i$ for alternative years for Kazakhstan

Top			Least
Rank	Year	$C_i$	Rank	Year	$C_i$
1	2012	0.600241305	11	2001	0.432044
2	2011	0.579962446	12	2003	0.430768
3	2019	0.530257102	13	2000	0.430103
4	2013	0.529114492	14	2004	0.426511
5	2014	0.516951806	15	2017	0.423607
6	2010	0.502696533	16	2016	0.400551
7	2008	0.467087947	17	2009	0.37768
8	2018	0.458352263	18	2005	0.377674
9	2002	0.442775175	19	2007	0.37036
10	2015	0.441119259	20	2006	0.35934

Table 12. Relative closeness $C_i$ for alternative years for Kyrgyzstan

Top			Least
Rank	Year	$C_i$	Rank	Year	$C_i$
1	2014	0.52583921	11	2001	0.48802
2	2006	0.522020754	12	2019	0.486601
3	2007	0.52089502	13	2013	0.47997
4	2005	0.516935569	14	2000	0.465312
5	2004	0.506572176	15	2010	0.439186
6	2012	0.499788247	16	2015	0.437113
7	2003	0.496945287	17	2018	0.431684
8	2011	0.491110061	18	2008	0.411323
9	2002	0.490844675	19	2009	0.410619
10	2017	0.490685378	20	2016	0.388777

Sakthivel, G., Ilangkumaran, M., & Gaikwad, A. (2015). A hybrid multi-criteria decision modeling approach for the best biodiesel blend selection based on anp-topsis analysis. Ain Shams Engineering Journal, 6(1), 239–256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asej.2014.08.003

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Yanık, L., & Eren, T. (2017). Borsa istanbul’da işlem gören otomotiv imalat sektörü fir- malarının finansal performanslarının ahp, topsis, electre ve vikor yöntemleri ile analizi. Yalova Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 7(13), 165–188. https://doi.org/10.17828/yalovasosbil.333899

 Google Scholar

Masca, M. (2017). Economic performance evaluation of European Union countries by topsis method. North Economic Review, 1(1), 83–94.

 Google Scholar

Lupo, T., & Bellomo, E. (2019). Dineserv along with fuzzy hierarchical topsis to support the best practices observation and service quality improvement in the restaurant context. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 137, 106046. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2019.106046

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Micale, R., La Fata, C. M., & La Scalia, G. (2019). A combined interval-valued electre tri and topsis approach for solving the storage location assignment problem. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 135, 199–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2019.06.011

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Memari, A., Dargi, A., Jokar, M. R. A., Ahmad, R., & Rahim, A. R. A. (2019). Sustainable supplier selection: A multi-criteria intuitionistic fuzzy topsis method. Journal of Manufacturing Systems, 50, 9–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmsy.2018.11.002

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Sarkar, A., Ghosh, A., Karmakar, B., Shaikh, A., & Mondal, S. P. (2020). Application of fuzzy topsis algorithm for selecting best family car. 2020 International Conference on Decision Aid Sciences and Application (DASA) (pp. 59–63).

 Google Scholar

Aktaş, N., & Demirel, N. (2021). A hybrid framework for evaluating corporate sustainability using multi-criteria decision-making. Environment Development and Sustainability, 23(10), 15591–15618. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-01311-5

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Avikal, S., Singh, A. K., Kumar, K. N., & Badhotiya, G. K. (2021). A fuzzy-ahp and topsis based approach for selection of metal matrix composite used in design and structural applications. Materials Today: Proceedings, 46, 11050–11053. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2021.02.161

 Google Scholar

Hezer, S., Gelmez, E., & Özceylan, E. (2021). Comparative analysis of topsis, vikor and copras methods for the COVID-19 regional safety assessment. Journal of Infection and Public Health, 14(6), 775–786. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jiph.2021.03.003

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kilic, H. S., & Yalcin, A. S. (2021). Comparison of municipalities considering environmental sustainability via neutrosophic dematel based topsis. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 75, 100827. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seps.2020.100827

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Bulut, E., & Şimşek, A. İ. (n.d.). Evaluation of financial performance of some technology companies traded in borsa Istanbul by topsis method. Fırat Üniversitesi Uluslararası İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 6(2), 103–130.

 Google Scholar

Watrobski, J., Baczkiewicz, A., Ziemba, E., & Salabun, W. (2022). Sustainable cities and communities assessment using the daria-topsis method. Sustainable Cities and Society, 83, 103926. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2022.103926

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Sonmez, F., Baysal, G., Baysal, I. A., & Bademcioglu, M. (2023). Determining the financial performances of BIST100 energy companies by topsis method. PressAcademia Procedia, 16. https://doi.org/10.17261/Pressacademia.2023.1680

 Google Scholar

Beaufils, V., & Tomin, J. (2020). Stochastic approach to worldwide language classification: The signals and the noise towards long-range exploration.

 Google Scholar