4.5 Article

A Bibliometric Analysis of Fuzzy Decision Research During 1970-2015

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF FUZZY SYSTEMS
卷 19, 期 1, 页码 1-14

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s40815-016-0272-z

关键词

Fuzzy decision research; Fuzzy set; Bibliometric analyses; China; Iran

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [71501135]
  2. China Postdoctoral Science Foundation [2016T90863]
  3. Scientific Research Foundation for Excellent Young Scholars at Sichuan University [2016SCU04A23]
  4. Scientific Research Foundation for Scholars at Sichuan University [1082204112042]
  5. Central University Basic Scientific Research Business Expenses Project [skqy201649]
  6. Sichuan Planning Project of Social Science [SC16TJ015]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Fuzzy set just past its 50-year anniversary and different fuzzy associations and organizations hold different forms of conferences and activities to celebrate this epoch-making scientific discovery. As an important branch of fuzzy theory, fuzzy decision has attracted scholars from almost all fields from psychologists, economists, to computer scientists. In this paper, we conduct a bibliometric analysis on fuzzy decision-related research to find out some underlying patterns and dynamics in this research direction. A total of 13,901 fuzzy decision-related publication records from Web of Science are analyzed with the aid of the textmining software Vantage Point. Many interesting results with regard to the annual trends, the top players in terms of country level, time dynamic as well as institutional level, the publishing journals, the highly cited papers, and the research landscape are yielded and explained in-depth. It is observed that some small or developing economies ( such as China, Iran, Taiwan, and Turkey) are quite active in fuzzy decision research. The fuzzy decision theories and methods have increasingly be utilized in various fields evidenced by the growing number of disciplines involved in the fuzzy decision research.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据