Reporting Public Multicriteria Decision-Making Applications: A Journal Editor’s Perspective



Published Sep 7, 2022
Enrique Mu


The following reflections refer to the development and reporting of public decision-making studies. These observations are provided with the hope of improving the quality and validity of multicriteria decision-making (MCDM) studies in the public sector. While my thoughts here are not intended to be a comprehensive study of how to report public MCDM studies, my intention is to highlight some key elements that are often not properly addressed by researchers. These observations are particularly relevant for AHP/ANP applications due to their widespread use in public decision-making.

How to Cite

Mu, E. (2022). Reporting Public Multicriteria Decision-Making Applications:: A Journal Editor’s Perspective. International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process, 14(2).


Download data is not yet available.
Abstract 77 | PDF Downloads 38



MCDM Reporting, Public MCDM, AHP/ANP Reporting, Stakeholder Engagement, Group Decision Making

Burns, K. E. A., & Kho, M. E. (2015). How to assess a survey report: a guide for readers and peer reviewers. CMAJ, 187(6), E198-E205. Doi:10.1503/cmaj.140545

Creative_Decisions_Foundation. (2022). Changing the way we measure things.

Goepel, K. D. (2018). Implementation of an online software tool for the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP-OS). International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process, 10(3), 469-487. Doi:

Gonzalez-Urango, H. (2018). A combined social network analysis-Analytic Network Process approach to evaluate sustainable tourist strategies. Paper presented at the Latin American Studies Association, Barcelona, Spain.

Gonzalez-Urango, H., Mu, E., & García-Melón, M. (2021). Stakeholder engagement and ANP best research practices in sustainable territorrial and urban strategic planning. In M. Doumpos, F. Ferreira, & C. Zopounidis (Eds.), Multiple Criteria Decision Making for sustainable development. Switzerland: Springer Nature.

Mu, E., & Cooper, O. (2022). A contingency approach to multi-criteria decision-making: A search for validity through rigor and relevance. In I. Topcu, S. O. Ekici, O. Kabak, E. Aktas, & O. Ozaydin (Eds.), New perspectives in operations research and management science. London: Springer.

Mu, E., & Pereyra-Rojas, M. (2018). Practical decision making using Super Decisions v3: Springer.

Mu, E., & Stern, H. (2014). The City of Pittsburgh goes to the cloud: a case study of cloud strategic selection and deployment. Journal of Information Technology Teaching Cases, 4, 70-85.

Saaty, T. L. (2004). Fundamentals of the Analytic Network Process - dependence and feedback in decision making with a single network. Journal of Systems Science and Systems Engineering, 13(2), 129-157. Doi:

Saaty, T. L., & Peniwati, K. (2008). Group decision making: Drawing out and reconciling differences. Pittsburgh, PA: RWS Publications.

Solutions, T. (2022). Decision mentor. Retrieved from

Strand, R., Spaapen, J., Bauer, M. W., Hogan, E., Revuelta, G., Stagl, S., . . . Guimarães Pereira, A. (2015). Indicators for promoting and monitoring responsible research and innovation - Report from the expert group on policy indicators for responsible research and innovation.

SuperDecisions. (2020). Super Decisions. Retrieved from
Essays, Reviews & Comments

Most read articles by the same author(s)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 > >>