Please wait a minute...
Data Analysis and Knowledge Discovery  2018, Vol. 2 Issue (6): 48-57    DOI: 10.11925/infotech.2096-3467.2017.1124
Current Issue | Archive | Adv Search |
Impacts and Corrections of Natural Weight on Nonlinear Sci-tech Reviews——Case Study of TOPSIS Method
Liping Yu1,3,Xiayun Song2,Zuogong Wang3()
1School of Management and e-Business, Zhejiang Gongshang University, Hangzhou 310018, China
2School of Accounting, Zhejiang University of Finance and Economics, Hangzhou 310018, China
3Finance School, Guizhou University of Finance and Economics, Guiyang 550025, China
Download: PDF(619 KB)   HTML ( 2
Export: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)      
Abstract  

[Objective] This paper explores the implicit natural weight issues facing the scientific and technology review indexes, and then proposes a method to address them. [Methods] First, we analyzed data from the JCR2016 mathematics journals with the help of TOPSIS method, aiming to find the influence of natural weights on the nonlinear evaluation method. Then, we proposed a method increasing the dynamic maximum mean to the standardized level, aiming to eliminate the impacts. [Results] We found that the natural weights posed significant effects to the Nonlinear Evaluation methods. For the weighted method, the design weights, the natural weights and the evaluation methods all affected the actual weights. For the non-weighted method, the natural weights and the evaluation methods affected the actual weights. Eliminating the natural weights could effectively reduce the influence of the evaluation method on the actual weights, which helps the design weights play a bigger role. The distribution of index data also affected the actual weights. [Limitations] The proposed method is still an approximation algorithm, which could not yield the exactly equal means. [Conclusions] To achieve the fair review for the science and technology products, we must pay attention to the natural weights issues, which is a systematic error.

Key wordsNatural Weights      Design Weights      Standardization Method of Approximate      Dynamic Maximum Mean      Actual Weights      Nonlinear Evaluation Method     
Received: 14 November 2017      Published: 11 July 2018

Cite this article:

Liping Yu,Xiayun Song,Zuogong Wang. Impacts and Corrections of Natural Weight on Nonlinear Sci-tech Reviews——Case Study of TOPSIS Method. Data Analysis and Knowledge Discovery, 2018, 2(6): 48-57.

URL:

http://manu44.magtech.com.cn/Jwk_infotech_wk3/EN/10.11925/infotech.2096-3467.2017.1124     OR     http://manu44.magtech.com.cn/Jwk_infotech_wk3/EN/Y2018/V2/I6/48

[1] Vinkler P.Introducing the Current Contribution Index for Characterizing the Recent,Relevant Impact of Journals[J]. Scientometrics, 2008, 79(2): 409-420.
[2] Adler R, Ewing J, Taylor P.Citation Statistics: A Report from the International Mathematical Union (IMU) in Cooperation with the International Council of Industrial and Applied Mathematics (ICIAM) and the Institute of Mathematical Statistics (IMS)[J]. Statistical Science, 2009, 24(1): 1-14.
[3] Seglen P O.The Skewness of Science[J]. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 1992, 43(9): 628-638.
[4] 俞立平, 潘云涛, 武夷山. 科技评价中不同客观评价方法权重的比较研究[J]. 科技管理研究, 2009(7): 148-150.
[4] (Yu Liping, Pan Yuntao, Wu Yishan.Comparative Research on Weight of Different Objective Evaluation Methods in Scientific and Technological Evaluation[J]. Science and Technology Management Research, 2009(7): 148-150.)
[5] 俞立平, 刘爱军. 主成分与因子分析在期刊评价中的改进研究[J]. 情报杂志, 2014, 33(12): 94-98.
[5] (Yu Liping, Liu Aijun.The Misunderstandings and Optimization of Principal Component and Factor Analysis in Journal Evaluation[J]. Journal of Intelligence, 2014, 33(12): 94-98.)
[6] 何强. 群组评价中指标最优权重设计[J]. 统计研究, 2011, 28(8): 99-102.
[6] (He Qiang.Optimal Weighting Design of Indicators in Group Evaluation[J]. Statistical Research, 2011, 28(8): 99-102.)
[7] 苏术锋. 客观评价法中的数据差异赋权有效性及实证[J]. 统计与决策, 2015(21): 74-76.
[7] (Su Shufeng.Validity and Demonstration of Data Discrepancy Empowerment in Objective Evaluation Method[J]. Statistics and Decision, 2015(21): 74-76.)
[8] 邹树梁, 武良鹏. 混合多属性决策问题中的权重研究[J]. 运筹与管理, 2017, 26(1): 76-81.
[8] (Zou Shuliang, Wu Liangpeng.Research on the Weight of Hybrid Multiple Attribute Decision-making Problem[J]. Operations Research and Management Science, 2017, 26(1): 76-81.)
[9] 王化中, 强凤娇, 陈晓暾. 模糊综合评价中权重与评价原则的重新确定[J]. 统计与决策, 2015(8): 24-27.
[9] (Wang Huazhong, Qiang Fengjiao, Chen Xiaotun.Redetermination of Weight and Evaluation Principle in Fuzzy Comprehensive Evaluation[J]. Statistics and Decision, 2015(8): 24-27.)
[10] Hagerty M R, Land K C.Constructing Summary Indices of Quality of Life: A Model for the Effect of Heterogeneous Importance Weights[J]. Sociological Methods and Research, 2007, 35(4): 455-496.
[11] Kahneman D, Tversky A.Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk[J]. Econometrica, 1979, 47(2): 263-292.
[12] Edwards W, Barron F H.SMART and SMARTER: Improved Simple Methods for Multiattribute Utility Measurement[J]. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 1994, 60(3): 306-325.
[13] 周志远, 沈固朝. 粗糙集理论在情报分析指标权重确定中的应用[J]. 情报理论与实践, 2012, 35(9): 61-65.
[13] (Zhou Zhiyuan, Shen Guchao.Application of Rough Set Theory in Determining the Weight of Information Analysis Index[J]. Information Studies: Theory & Practice, 2012, 35(9): 61-65.)
[14] 曹秀英, 梁静国. 基于粗集理论的属性权重确定方法[J]. 中国管理科学, 2002, 10(5): 98-100.
[14] (Cao Xiuying, Liang Jingguo.The Method of Ascertaining Attribute Weight Based on Rough Sets Theory[J]. Chinese Journal of Management Science, 2002, 10(5): 98-100.)
[15] 王祖和, 亓霞. 多资源均衡的权重优选法[J]. 管理工程学报, 2002, 16(3): 91-93.
[15] (Wang Zuhe, Qi Xia.The Weight Optimal Choice Method of Multi-Resource Leveling[J]. Journal of Industrial Engineering/Engineering Management, 2002, 16(3): 91-93.)
[16] 周辉, 鲁燕飞, 王黔英, 等. 基于信息粒度的属性权重确定方法[J]. 统计与决策, 2006(20): 134-136.
[16] (Zhou Hui, Lu Yanfei, Wang Qianying, et al.Attribute Weight Determination Method Based on Information Granularity[J]. Statistics and Decision, 2006(20): 134-136.)
[17] 何立华, 王栎绮, 张连营. 基于聚类的多属性群决策专家权重确定方法[J]. 运筹与管理, 2014, 23(6): 65-72.
[17] (He Lihua, Wang Liqi, Zhang Lianying.A Method for Determining the Experts’ Weights of Multi-Attribute Group Decision-Making Based on Clustering Analysis[J]. Operations Research and Management Science, 2014, 23(6): 65-72.)
[18] 张立军, 邹琦. 基于路径系数权重的科技成果奖励评价模型[J]. 科技管理研究, 2008(5): 102-103.
[18] (Zhang Lijun, Zou Qi.Evaluation Model of Scientific and Technological Achievements Based on the Weight of Path Coefficient[J]. Science and Technology Management Research, 2008(5): 102-103.)
[19] 陈亮, 成榕, 岳立柱. 众里取大规则下由频率确定属性权重的方法[J]. 统计与决策, 2017(8): 63-66.
[19] (Chen Liang, Cheng Rong, Yue Lizhu.Method of Frequency Determining the Attribute Weights Based on the Take-the-Biggest- of-All Rule[J]. Statistics and Decision, 2017(8): 63-66.)
[20] 岳立柱, 闫艳. 基于序数信息的属性权重确定方法[J]. 统计与决策, 2015(13): 78-80.
[20] (Yue Lizhu, Yan Yan.Research on Attribute Weight Determination Method Based on Ordinal Information[J]. Statistics and Decision, 2015(13): 78-80.)
[21] 傅蓉. 平衡计分卡指标权重前后不一致现象研究[J]. 金融论坛, 2011(9): 71-74.
[21] (Fu Rong.A Study of Inconsistency of Initial Weight with Result Weight in Balanced Scorecard[J]. Finance Forum, 2011(9): 71-74.)
[22] 俞立平, 刘爱军. 期刊评价中TOPSIS的漏洞研究——权重单调性[J]. 情报杂志, 2014, 33(11): 131-135, 192.
[22] (Yu Liping, Liu Aijun.Study on TOPSIS’s Vulnerability in Journal Evaluation - Weights Monotony[J]. Journal of Intelligence, 2014, 33(11): 131-135, 192.)
No related articles found!
  Copyright © 2016 Data Analysis and Knowledge Discovery   Tel/Fax:(010)82626611-6626,82624938   E-mail:jishu@mail.las.ac.cn