Applied Research Advances

Vol. 2 No. 1 (2026): Applied Research Advances
Articles

Trends and Research Patterns in Multi-Criteria Decision-Making-based Logistics Performance Evaluation: A Bibliometric Analysis of Web of Science and Scopus Databases

Full text (pdf)
  • İbrahim İlker Avşar,
  • Emre Kadir Ozekenci
İbrahim İlker Avşar
Osmaniya Korkut Ata University, Logistics Department, Osmaniye, Türkiye
Emre Kadir Ozekenci
Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, Cag University, 33800 Mersin, Türkiye

Published 2026-09-11

Keywords

  • Logistics Performance Index,
  • Multi-Criteria Decision-Making,
  • Web of Science,
  • Scopus,
  • Bibliometrics

Copyright (c) 2026 İbrahim İlker Avşar, Emre Kadir Ozekenci (Author)

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

How to Cite

Avşar, İbrahim İlker, & Ozekenci, E. K. (2026). Trends and Research Patterns in Multi-Criteria Decision-Making-based Logistics Performance Evaluation: A Bibliometric Analysis of Web of Science and Scopus Databases. Applied Research Advances, 2(1), 275-290. https://doi.org/10.65069/ara21202633
Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

Abstract

This study aims to identify key trends and research directions in the field of logistics and Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) through a comprehensive bibliometric analysis. The increasing complexity of logistics operations, combined with the need to consider multiple criteria in decision-making, has made MCDM methods increasingly important in this area. For this purpose, the study employed bibliometric analysis using data from the Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus databases. Trends and research patterns in MCDM-based logistics performance evaluation were examined using Bibliometrix and VOSviewer. The findings indicate that the literature on logistics and MCDM has continuously evolved, reflecting growing academic interest over time. Furthermore, strong connections were identified with key contemporary themes such as sustainability, competitiveness, and performance improvement. These findings suggest that MCDM approaches are increasingly recognized as important tools for addressing complex decision problems in the logistics sector. Finally, the results indicate that future research focusing on sustainability and competitiveness could further contribute to both theoretical development and practical applications in logistics.

Full text (pdf)

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

  1. Caplice, C., & Sheffi, Y. (1995). A review and evaluation of logistics performance measurement systems. The International Journal of Logistics Management, 6(1), 61–74. https://doi.org/10.1108/09574099510805279
  2. Gani, A. (2017). The logistics performance effect in international trade. The Asian Journal of Shipping and Logistics, 33(4), 279–288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajsl.2017.12.012
  3. Lin, P. C., & Cheng, T. C. E. (2019). The diffusion and the international context of logistics performance. International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications, 22(2), 188–203. https://doi.org/10.1080/13675567.2018.1510907
  4. Arvis, J. F., Ojala, L., Wiederer, C., Shepherd, B., Raj, A., Diarebayeva, K., & Kliski, T. (2018). Trade logistics in the global economy: The logistics performance index and its indicators. World Bank. https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/576061531492034646/pdf/Connecting-to-compete-2018-trade-logistics-in-the-global-economy-the-logistics-performance-index-and-its-indicators.pdf
  5. Arvis, J. F., Ojala, L., Shepherd, B., Ulybina, D., & Wiederer, C. (2023). Connecting to compete 2023: Trade logistics in an uncertain global economy—The logistics performance index and its indicators. World Bank. https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/099042123145531599/pdf/P17146804a6a570ac0a4f80895e320dda1e.pdf
  6. Rezaei, J., van Roekel, W. S., & Tavasszy, L. (2018). Measuring the relative importance of the logistics performance index indicators using best worst method. Transport Policy, 68, 158–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2018.05.007
  7. Hasan, M. K., Lei, X., Tang, W., Nishi, N. N., & Latif, Z. (2025). Exploring logistics performance index (LPI) from global perspective: A study based on network analysis (NA). Operations Management Research, 18(3), 1088–1112. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12063-025-00550-3
  8. Mešić, A., Miškić, S., Stević, Ž., & Mastilo, Z. (2022). Hybrid MCDM solutions for evaluation of the logistics performance index of the Western Balkan countries. Economics, 10(1), 13–34. https://doi.org/10.2478/eoik-2022-0004
  9. Stević, Ž., Ersoy, N., Başar, E. E., & Baydaş, M. (2024). Addressing the global logistics performance index rankings with methodological insights and an innovative decision support framework. Applied Sciences, 14(22), 10334. https://doi.org/10.3390/app142210334
  10. Ozekenci, E. K. (2026a). Comparative analysis of the logistics performance index of Central and Eastern European countries: A hybrid LOPCOW-RAWEC model. Central European Business Review, 15(1), 89–109. https://doi.org/10.18267/j.cebr.408
  11. Ozekenci, E. K. (2025). Evaluation of the logistics performance index of OECD countries based on hybrid MCDM methods. Marmara University Journal of Economic and Administrative Sciences, 47(1), 47–76. https://doi.org/10.14780/muiibd.1469898
  12. Ulutaş, A., & Karaköy, Ç. (2019). An analysis of the logistics performance index of EU countries with an integrated MCDM model. Economics and Business Review, 5(4), 49–69. https://doi.org/10.18559/ebr.2019.4.3
  13. Miškić, S., Stević, Ž., Tadić, S., Alkhayyat, A., & Krstić, M. (2023). Assessment of the LPI of the EU countries using MCDM model with an emphasis on the importance of criteria. World Review of Intermodal Transportation Research, 11(3), 258–279. https://doi.org/10.1504/WRITR.2023.132501
  14. Çıray, D., Özdemir, Ü., & Mete, S. (2024). An evaluation of the logistics performance index using the ENTROPY-based ORESTE method. Journal of Transportation and Logistics, 9(1), 68–82. https://doi.org/10.26650/JTL.2024.1437070
  15. Ozekenci, E. K. (2024). Assessment of the logistics performance index of OPEC countries with ENTROPY, CRITIC and LOPCOW-based EDAS methods. Journal of Transportation and Logistics, 9(2), 260–279. https://doi.org/10.26650/JTL.2024.1339285
  16. Silva, Â., Barros, B., & Rodrigues, H. S. (2026). Multidecision criteria models for logistics performance index in the EU countries. Croatian Operational Research Review, 17(1), 97–110. https://doi.org/10.17535/crorr.2026.0008
  17. Hasan, M., Xunping, L., Jing, G., & Aka, S. (2026). Logistics performance research: A bibliometric mapping and future directions. Operations and Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 19(2), 248–267. https://doi.org/10.31387/oscm0650518
  18. Öztürk, O., Kocaman, R., & Kanbach, D. K. (2024). How to design bibliometric research: An overview and a framework proposal. Review of Managerial Science, 18(11), 3333–3361. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-024-00738-0
  19. Aria, M., & Cuccurullo, C. (2017). Bibliometrix: An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. Journal of Informetrics, 11(4), 959–975. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2017.08.007
  20. Bibliometrix. (n.d.). A brief introduction to bibliometrix. https://www.bibliometrix.org/introduction-to-bibliometrix/
  21. Lyu, P., Liu, X., & Yao, T. (2026). A bibliometric analysis of literature on bibliometrics in recent half-century. Journal of Information Science, 52(2), 324–344. https://doi.org/10.1177/01655515231191233
  22. Ninkov, A., Frank, J. R., & Maggio, L. A. (2022). Bibliometrics: Methods for studying academic publishing. Perspectives on Medical Education, 11(3), 173–176. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40037-021-00695-4
  23. Thompson, D. F., & Walker, C. K. (2015). A descriptive and historical review of bibliometrics with applications to medical sciences. Pharmacotherapy: The Journal of Human Pharmacology and Drug Therapy, 35(6), 551–559. https://doi.org/10.1002/phar.1586
  24. Chadegani, A. A., Salehi, H., Yunus, M. M., Farhadi, H., Fooladi, M., Farhadi, M., & Ebrahim, N. A. (2013). A comparison between two main academic literature collections: Web of Science and Scopus databases. arXiv preprint arXiv:1305.0377. https://doi.org/10.5539/ass.v9n5p18
  25. Airyalat, S. A. S., Malkawi, L. W., & Momani, S. M. (2019). Comparing bibliometric analysis using PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases. JoVE (Journal of Visualized Experiments), (152), e58494. https://doi.org/10.3791/58494
  26. 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
  27. Arruda, H., Silva, E. R., Lessa, M., Proença Jr, D., & Bartholo, R. (2022). VOSviewer and bibliometrix. Journal of the Medical Library Association: JMLA, 110(3), 392. https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2022.1434
  28. 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
  29. Lotka, A. J. (1926). The frequency distribution of scientific productivity. Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences, 16(12), 317–323. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24529203
  30. Talukdar, S., Eibek, K. U., Akhter, S., Ziaul, S., Towfiqul Islam, A. R. Md., & Mallick, J. (2021). Modeling fragmentation probability of land-use and land-cover using the bagging, random forest and random subspace in the Teesta River Basin, Bangladesh. Ecological Indicators, 126, 107612. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2021.107612
  31. Das, A., & Basu, T. (2020). Assessment of peri-urban wetland ecological degradation through importance-performance analysis (IPA): A study on Chatra Wetland, India. Ecological Indicators, 114, 106274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.106274
  32. Kucukaltan, B., Irani, Z., & Aktas, E. (2016). A decision support model for identification and prioritization of key performance indicators in the logistics industry. Computers in Human Behavior, 65, 346–358. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.08.045
  33. Martí, L., Martín, J. C., & Puertas, R. (2017). A DEA-logistics performance index. Journal of Applied Economics, 20(1), 169–192. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1514-0326(17)30008-9
  34. Güneri, B., & Deveci, M. (2023). Evaluation of supplier selection in the defense industry using q-rung orthopair fuzzy set based EDAS approach. Expert Systems with Applications, 222, 119846. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2023.119846
  35. Markovits-Somogyi, R., & Bokor, Z. (2014). Assessing the logistics efficiency of European countries by using the DEA-PC methodology. Transport, 29(2), 137–145. https://doi.org/10.3846/16484142.2014.928787
  36. Shahparvari, S., Nasirian, A., Mohammadi, A., Noori, S., & Chhetri, P. (2020). A GIS-LP integrated approach for the logistics hub location problem. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 146, 106488. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2020.106488
  37. Cedillo-Campos, M., & Sánchez-Ramírez, C. (2013). Dynamic self-assessment of supply chains performance: An emerging market approach. Journal of Applied Research and Technology, 11(3), 338–347. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1665-6423(13)71544-X
  38. Bayraktar, E., Zaim, S., Gudelek, M., & Golgeci, I. (2025). Global logistics efficiency after COVID-19: A cross-country analysis using the logistics performance index. International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications, 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/13675567.2025.2540863
  39. Li, Y., & Guangwen, Z. (2025). Balancing innovation and accountability: AI's transformative influence on logistics in G20 nations. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 12(1), 750. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-025-05090-6
  40. Haralambides, H., Akdamar, E., & Akgul, E. F. (2026). Revealing patterns of technology and commerce: Evidence from digital competitiveness and logistics performance. The Asian Journal of Shipping and Logistics, 42(2), 69–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajsl.2026.03.001
  41. Long Khuc, D., van Nguyen, T., Dung La, T., Hoan Kieu, Q., & Thanh Thuy Duong, N. (2026). Does culture matter? Assessing its impact on logistics performance across countries. Journal of Transport and Supply Chain Management, 20, 1296. https://doi.org/10.4102/JTSCM.v20i0.1296
  42. Wahyu, M., Thaariq, R., & Lusiantoro, L. (2026). Breaking connectivity barriers: Does China's Belt and Road Initiative affect global logistics performance? Transport Policy, 184, 104185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2026.104185
  43. Salem, M. A., Alshawtari, F. A., & Shatila, A. M. (2024). The impacts of logistics performance indicators on the competitiveness of GCC countries. Asian Journal of Middle Eastern and Islamic Studies, 18(4), 393–409. https://doi.org/10.1080/25765949.2025.2480006