
Provides evidence showing that although analytic hierarchy process (AHP) is effective to use for management decision making, it can be defective if used improperly. AHP becomes one of the essential multi‐criteria, decision‐making methods used by both management practitioners and academics. With the development of computer software packages, its usage expands vastly across different business and management areas. An example is presented to illustrate how the defective methodology of AHP can contaminate the findings and subsequent analyses and discussions. The “defected” papers disclosed a defective methodology that generated invalid findings. This paper first points out what the query is. Then, possible reasons behind the invalid findings are described, which are also explained with mathematical expressions. Apparently, “defected” papers may infect those who use them and transfer the risks out into the academic world. Asserts its researchers’ responsibility to raise any risky papers for discussions once they have found them, and advises the authors of these papers to take a positive attitude in dealing with queries and critiques.
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 87 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 1% | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Top 1% | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |
