IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v119y2019i1d10.1007_s11192-019-03032-z.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A new hybrid model for quality assessment of scientific conferences based on Rough BWM and SERVQUAL

Author

Listed:
  • Željko Stević

    (University of East Sarajevo)

  • Irena Đalić

    (University of East Sarajevo)

  • Dragan Pamučar

    (University of Defence in Belgrade)

  • Zdravko Nunić

    (University of East Sarajevo)

  • Slavko Vesković

    (University of Belgrade)

  • Marko Vasiljević

    (University of East Sarajevo)

  • Ilija Tanackov

    (University of Novi Sad)

Abstract

Organizing scientific conferences requires the execution of a series of activities which aim to ensure quality in terms of published papers, completed reviews, information forwarded to participants on time, to putting together an exceptional event as a whole. Essentially, this is far from an easy task and requires the participation of a large number of people who will carry out organizational obligations daily, and often all day long. The quality, or rather satisfaction of the conference participants can be viewed through five aspects: Reliability, Responsiveness, Assurance, Empathy, and Tangibility–dimensions that comprise the SERVQUAL model. In this paper, a new hybrid model that uses the advantages of rough set theory, multi-criteria decision making, and quality assessment models has been developed. The proposed model uses the Rough BWM (Best–Worst Method) in order to determine the significance of five aspects, while the modified SERVQUAL model, based on 28 items, is used to determine expectations and observations. The model was applied for the evaluation of quality of the New Horizons Conference held on November 17–18, 2017, in Doboj. The conference was attended by authors from all six continents, representing a total of 58 different institutions. Therefore, it was necessary to fulfill the wishes and demands of numerous authors, which naturally differ due to the different geographical areas from which they hail. The total sample, on the basis of which the quality of the scientific conference was assessed, includes 104 authors who completed the questionnaire. A total of six hypotheses were set up, which were then tested using the Signum test.

Suggested Citation

  • Željko Stević & Irena Đalić & Dragan Pamučar & Zdravko Nunić & Slavko Vesković & Marko Vasiljević & Ilija Tanackov, 2019. "A new hybrid model for quality assessment of scientific conferences based on Rough BWM and SERVQUAL," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 119(1), pages 1-30, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:119:y:2019:i:1:d:10.1007_s11192-019-03032-z
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-019-03032-z
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-019-03032-z
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11192-019-03032-z?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Reza Ahmadi Kahnali & Ahmad Esmaeili, 2015. "An integration of SERVQUAL dimensions and logistics service quality indicators (A case study)," International Journal of Services and Operations Management, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 21(3), pages 289-309.
    2. Arash Apornak, 2017. "Customer satisfaction measurement using SERVQUAL model, integration Kano and QFD approach in an educational institution," International Journal of Productivity and Quality Management, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 21(1), pages 129-141.
    3. Ya Lan WANG & Tainyi LUOR & Pin LUARN & Hsi-peng LU, 2015. "Contribution and Trend to Quality Research—a literature review of SERVQUAL model from 1998 to 2013," Informatica Economica, Academy of Economic Studies - Bucharest, Romania, vol. 19(1), pages 34-45.
    4. Negin Salimi & Jafar Rezaei, 2016. "Measuring efficiency of university-industry Ph.D. projects using best worst method," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(3), pages 1911-1938, December.
    5. Waister Silva Martins & Marcos André Gonçalves & Alberto H. F. Laender & Nivio Ziviani, 2010. "Assessing the quality of scientific conferences based on bibliographic citations," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 83(1), pages 133-155, April.
    6. Negin Salimi, 2017. "Quality assessment of scientific outputs using the BWM," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 112(1), pages 195-213, July.
    7. Salimi, Negin & Rezaei, Jafar, 2018. "Evaluating firms’ R&D performance using best worst method," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 147-155.
    8. Dragan Pamučar & Ljubomir Gigović & Zoran Bajić & Miljojko Janošević, 2017. "Location Selection for Wind Farms Using GIS Multi-Criteria Hybrid Model: An Approach Based on Fuzzy and Rough Numbers," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(8), pages 1-23, July.
    9. Rezaei, Jafar, 2015. "Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 49-57.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Tsuen-Ho Hsu & Sen-Tien Her & Jia-Jeng Hou, 2021. "Developing Universally Applicable Service Quality Assessment Model Based on the Theory of Consumption Values, and Using Fuzzy Linguistic Preference Relations to Empirically Test Three Industries," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(20), pages 1-32, October.
    2. Ahmed Dabees & Mahmoud Barakat & Sahar Sobhy Elbarky & Andrej Lisec, 2023. "A Framework for Adopting a Sustainable Reverse Logistics Service Quality for Reverse Logistics Service Providers: A Systematic Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-16, January.
    3. Željko Stević & Ilija Tanackov & Adis Puška & Goran Jovanov & Jovica Vasiljević & Darko Lojaničić, 2021. "Development of Modified SERVQUAL–MCDM Model for Quality Determination in Reverse Logistics," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-17, May.
    4. Tai-Wu Chang & Huai-Wei Lo & Kai-Ying Chen & James J. H. Liou, 2019. "A Novel FMEA Model Based on Rough BWM and Rough TOPSIS-AL for Risk Assessment," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 7(10), pages 1-20, September.
    5. Milad Kolagar & Seyed Mohammad Hassan Hosseini & Ramin Felegari & Parviz Fattahi, 2020. "Policy-making for renewable energy sources in search of sustainable development: a hybrid DEA-FBWM approach," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 40(4), pages 485-509, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Mi, Xiaomei & Tang, Ming & Liao, Huchang & Shen, Wenjing & Lev, Benjamin, 2019. "The state-of-the-art survey on integrations and applications of the best worst method in decision making: Why, what, what for and what's next?," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 205-225.
    2. Salimi, Negin & Rezaei, Jafar, 2018. "Evaluating firms’ R&D performance using best worst method," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 147-155.
    3. Geerten Van de Kaa & Daniel Scholten & Jafar Rezaei & Christine Milchram, 2017. "The Battle between Battery and Fuel Cell Powered Electric Vehicles: A BWM Approach," Energies, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-13, October.
    4. Mališa Žižović & Dragan Pamučar & Goran Ćirović & Miodrag M. Žižović & Boža D. Miljković, 2020. "A Model for Determining Weight Coefficients by Forming a Non-Decreasing Series at Criteria Significance Levels (NDSL)," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 8(5), pages 1-18, May.
    5. Govindan, Kannan & Shankar, K. Madan & Kannan, Devika, 2020. "Achieving sustainable development goals through identifying and analyzing barriers to industrial sharing economy: A framework development," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 227(C).
    6. Mohammadi, Majid & Rezaei, Jafar, 2020. "Bayesian best-worst method: A probabilistic group decision making model," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    7. Badri Ahmadi, Hadi & Kusi-Sarpong, Simonov & Rezaei, Jafar, 2017. "Assessing the social sustainability of supply chains using Best Worst Method," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 99-106.
    8. Hamzeh Soltanali & Mehdi Khojastehpour & Siamak Kheybari, 2023. "Evaluating the critical success factors for maintenance management in agro-industries using multi-criteria decision-making techniques," Operations Management Research, Springer, vol. 16(2), pages 949-968, June.
    9. Besharati Fard, Moein & Moradian, Parisa & Emarati, Mohammadreza & Ebadi, Mehdi & Gholamzadeh Chofreh, Abdoulmohammad & Klemeŝ, Jiří Jaromír, 2022. "Ground-mounted photovoltaic power station site selection and economic analysis based on a hybrid fuzzy best-worst method and geographic information system: A case study Guilan province," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    10. Željko Stević & Dragan Pamučar & Marko Subotić & Jurgita Antuchevičiene & Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas, 2018. "The Location Selection for Roundabout Construction Using Rough BWM-Rough WASPAS Approach Based on a New Rough Hamy Aggregator," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-27, August.
    11. Balali, Amirhossein & Yunusa-Kaltungo, Akilu & Edwards, Rodger, 2023. "A systematic review of passive energy consumption optimisation strategy selection for buildings through multiple criteria decision-making techniques," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 171(C).
    12. Ertunç, Ela & Uyan, Mevlut, 2022. "Land valuation with Best Worst Method in land consolidation projects," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(C).
    13. Haoran Zhao & Huiru Zhao & Sen Guo, 2018. "Comprehensive Performance Evaluation of Electricity Grid Corporations Employing a Novel MCDM Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-23, June.
    14. Huseyin Kocak & Atalay Caglar & Gulin Zeynep Oztas, 2018. "Euclidean Best–Worst Method and Its Application," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 17(05), pages 1587-1605, September.
    15. Shih-Chia Chang & Ming-Tsang Lu & Mei-Jen Chen & Li-Hua Huang, 2021. "Evaluating the Application of CSR in the High-Tech Industry during the COVID-19 Pandemic," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(15), pages 1-16, July.
    16. Gupta, Himanshu, 2018. "Evaluating service quality of airline industry using hybrid best worst method and VIKOR," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 35-47.
    17. Kheybari, Siamak & Kazemi, Mostafa & Rezaei, Jafar, 2019. "Bioethanol facility location selection using best-worst method," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 242(C), pages 612-623.
    18. Rezaei, Jafar & van Roekel, Wilco S. & Tavasszy, Lori, 2018. "Measuring the relative importance of the logistics performance index indicators using Best Worst Method," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 158-169.
    19. Shojaei, Payam & Seyed Haeri, Seyed Amin & Mohammadi, Sahar, 2018. "Airports evaluation and ranking model using Taguchi loss function, best-worst method and VIKOR technique," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 4-13.
    20. Peipei You & Sen Guo & Haoran Zhao & Huiru Zhao, 2017. "Operation Performance Evaluation of Power Grid Enterprise Using a Hybrid BWM-TOPSIS Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(12), pages 1-15, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:119:y:2019:i:1:d:10.1007_s11192-019-03032-z. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.