How to get published manuscript in Q1 Scopus journals?

Hello,

I am currently working on sensitivity analysis in the context of AHP. I use the online tool BPMSG from Goepel, maybe someone here knows it. However, I have a problem with the traceability of the results. Let's assume that there are exactly 3 criteria in the AHP (C1,C2,C3). Then I would like to know how the final value for an alternative (a1) results if one of the criteria changes in weighting, right?

I'll just say C1 decreases by x. However, the value x that is taken away from C1 must be distributed to C2 and C3. I just wonder which method is used to do this. Is x simply distributed equally to C2 and C3 or does this happen according to the share of C2 or C3 in the sum of C2 and C3?

When I do that, I get the following for the remaining two criteria:

(C1-x) = New C1

(C2 + (C2 / (C2 + C3)) * x) = New C2

(C3 + (C3 / (C2 + C3)) * x) = New C3

Unfortunately, however, I do not know if this is correct. If I multiply the criteria with the corresponding values of alternative a1 and combine the whole thing to a final value, I can calculate the same again with the other alternatives. When I compare the graphs to see how big x has to be to change the final prioritization of the alternatives, I always get the wrong values compared to the online tool. Therefore I would like to know if the redistribution of the weights is correct.

I hope someone can help me despite the long question. Thanks a lot!

In recent years, different MCDM methods have been developed based on different theories (Utility theory, Prospective theory, Regret theory,...). What will be the hot areas of research in MCDM in near future?

Actual reviewing of an article requires clear and updated knowledge on the subject as well as about the stage of contemporary research on the topic of article. It is a tusk of experts.

But journals, even the journal take Article Processing Charge and/ or PDF downloading charge at a very high rate and get a huge amount of profit every year do not pay any money to the reviewers.

I know some journals who pay 1000-1500 USD to the review article writers, but do not pay a single pice to the reviewers.

Why free service is expected from the reviewers where the target is business?

Why reviewers are deprived from payment for their time and high quality services?

I explain here my poits of view. I would very much like the opinion of colleagues

I am looking for journals with no APC in the field of transport and logistics.

Please give some recommendations

I need help from anyone that could confirm or correct the identification of the species listed in the manuscrito attached "Arsenura and Titaea (Lepidoptera: Saturniidae: Arsenurinae): new records for the Cerrado of Northeast Brazil "

Hello,

I am currently formulating an optimization model that integrates vehicle routing problem and vaccine supply chain. The model includes delivering vaccines to vaccination centers and on-spot locations representing individuals requesting to be vaccinated at home. The objective function includes maximizing the amount of doses delivered to both customers but, since the number of doses demanded by vaccination centers is significantly larger than on spots'. the model will just focus on delivering to vaccination centers and ignore the other since its effect on the objective function value is negligible. I tried to solve this by multiplying the on spot's term by a factor representing the ratio between both demands to make them equally important to the model. but I kept getting biased results. So, I formulated 2 different objective functions where each objective maximizes one customer doses why having a constraint that forces the vehicles to deliver a specified percentage of the demand of the other customer.

my question is: can I consider this model as bi-objective and treat the objectives as conflicting ?since maximizing one of these objectives will be on the account of the other taking into account that both objectives have the same unit.

I found that most of the data to which MCDM applies are panel data, and there is very little about time series evaluation using MCDM. Now I have some data recording pilots flying aircraft which are multidimensional time series. Is it possible to use the MCDM approach to assess the pilot's operating level based on these data?

Significance of normalization

Normalization is a process to transform data in different units into a common scale and comparable units.

Why normalize in AHP:

The first step in AHP is to assign numbers as per the Satty's scale to different attributes which affect the decesion making.

Weightage of different attributes can be calculated from step1 itself without normalizing.