Àäëåð Ð., Ýâèíã Ä., Òåéëîð Ï. Ñòàòèñòèêè öèòèðîâàíèÿ // Áèáëèîñôåðà. – 2011. – ¹ 4. – Ñ. 69–84.
Äîêëàä Ìåæäóíàðîäíîãî ìàòåìàòè÷åñêîãî ñîþçà (IMU) â ñîòðóäíè÷åñòâå
ñ Ìåæäóíàðîäíûì ñîâåòîì ïðîìûøëåííîé è ïðèêëàäíîé ìàòåìàòèêè (ICIAM)
è Èíñòèòóòîì ìàòåìàòè÷åñêîé ñòàòèñòèêè (IMS).
1. Evidence Report, 2007. The use of bibliometrics to measure research quality in the UK higher education system. – URL: http://bookshop.universitiesuk.ac.uk/ downloads/bibliometrics.pdf
2. Martin B. R. The use of multiple indicators in the assessment of basic research // Scientometrics. – 1996. – Vol. 36, N 3. – P. 343–362.
3. Carey A. L., Cowling M. G., Taylor P. G. Assessing research in the mathematical sciences // The Austral. Math. Soc. Gaz. – 2007. – Vol. 34, N 2. – P. 84–89.
4. Garfield E. Agony and the ecstasy – the history and meaning of the journal impact factor : presented at the Intern. congr. on peer review a. bibliomedical publication. Chicago, Sept. 16, 2005. – URL: http://garfield.library.upenn.edu/papers/jifchicago2005.pdf
5. Thomson: selection. – URL: http://scientific.thomson. com/free/essays/selectionofmaterial/journalselection
6. Thomson: impact factor. – URL: http://scientific.thomson.com/free/essays/journalcitationreports/impactfactor
7. Seglen P. O. Why the impact factor for journals should not be used for evaluating research // BMJ. – 1997. – Vol. 314. – P. 497.
8. Amin M., Mabe M. Impact factor: use and abuse // Perspectives in Publishing. – 2000. – N. 1. – P. 1–6.
9. Monastersky R. The number that’s devouring science // The Chronicle of Higher Education. – 2005. – Vol. 52, N 8.
10. Ewing J. Measuring journals // Notices of the AMS. – 2006. – Vol. 53, N 9. – P. 1049–1053.
11. Adler R. The impact of impact factors // IMS Bull. – 2007. – Vol. 36, N 5. – P. 4.
12. Hall P. Measuring research performance in the mathematical sciences in Australian universities // The Austral. Math. Soc. Gaz. – 2007. – Vol. 34, N 1. – P. 26–30.
13. Garfield E. Long-term vs. short-term journal impact (part II) // The Scientist. – 1998. – Vol. 12, N 14. – P. 12.
14. Garfield E. Why are the impacts of the leading medical journals so similar and yet so different? // Current Comments. – 1987. – N 2.
15. Stringer M. J., Sales-Pardo M., Nunes Amaral L. A. Effectiveness of journal ranking schemes as a tool for locating information // PLoS ONE. – 2008. – Vol. 3, N 2. – P. E1683.
16. Hirsch J. E. An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output // Proc. of the Nat. Acad. of Sciences of the USA. – 2006. – Vol. 102, N 46. – P. 16569–16573.
17. Egghe L. Theory and practice of the g-index // Scientometrics. – 2006. – Vol. 69, N 1. – P. 131–152.
18. Universal behavior of a research productivity index / P. D. Batista [et al.] : preprint, 2005. – URL: http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0510/0510142.pdf
19. Batista P. D., Campiteli M. G., Kinouchi O. Is it possible to compare researchers with different scientific interests? // Scientometrics. – 2006. – Vol. 68, N 1. – P. 179–189.
20. Sidiropoulos A., Katsaros D., Manolopoulos Y. Generalized h-index for disclosing latent facts in citation networks. Vl : preprint, 2006. – URL: http://delab.csd.auth. gr/papers/LinkKDD06skm.pdf
21. Lehmann S., Jackson A. D., Lautrup B. E. Measures for measures // Nature. – 2006. – Vol. 444, N 21. – P. 1003–1004.
22. Molinari J. F., Molinari A. A new methodology for ranking scientific institutions // Scientometrics. – 2008. – Vol. 75, N 1. – P. 163–174.
23. Kinney A. L. National scientific facilities and their science impact on nonbiomedical research // Proc. of the Nat. Acad. of Sciences of the USA. – 2007. – Vol. 104, N 46. – P. 17943–17947.
24. Thomson: history. – URL: http://scientific.thomson.com/ free/essays/citationindexing/history
25. Garfield E. Citation analysis as a tool in journal evaluation // Science. – 1972. – Vol. 178, N 4060. – P. 471–479.
26. Thomson: fifty years. – URL: http://scientific.thomson. com/free/essays/citationindexing/50y-citationindexing
27. Garfield E. Citation indexes for science: a new dimension in documentation through association of ideas // Science. – 1955. – Vol. 122, N 3159. – P. 108–111.
28. Martin B. R., Irvine J. Assessing basic research // Research Policy. – 1983. – Vol. 12. – P. 61–90.
29. Cozzens S. E. What do citations count? The rhetoric-first model // Scientometrics. – 1989. – Vol. 15, N 5/6. – P. 437–447.
30. Brooks T. Evidence of complex citer motivations // J. of the Amer. Soc. for Information Science. – 1986. – Vol. 37, N 1. – P. 34–36.
31. Best J. Damned lies and statistics: untangling the numbers from the media, politicians, and activists. – Berkeley : Univ. of California Press, 2001.
32. Bergstrom C. Eigenfactor: measuring the value and presitige of scholarly journals // College a. Research Libr. News. – 2007. – Vol. 68, N 5. – P. 314–316.
33. Performance indicators: good, bad, and ugly; Report of a working party on performance monitoring in the public services / S. Bird [et al.] // J. of the Royal Statist. Soc. A. – 2005. – Vol. 168, pt. 1. – P. 1–27.
34. Goldstein H., Spiegelhalter D. J. League tables and their limitations : statistic. iss. in comparisons of institut. performance // J. of the Royal Statist. Soc. A. – 1996. – Vol. 159, N 3. – P. 385–443.
35. Rossner M., Van Epps H., Hill E. Show me the data // J. of Cell Biology. – 2007. – Vol. 179, N 6. – P. 1091–1092.
36. Meho L., Yang K. Impact of data sources on citation counts and rankings of LIS faculty: Web of Science vs. Scopus and Google Scholar // J. of the Amer. Soc. for Inform. Science a. Technology. – 2007. – Vol. 58, N 13. – P. 2105–2125.
37. Macdonald S., Kam J. Aardvark et al.: quality journals and gamesmanship in management studies // J. of Inform. Science. – 2007. – Vol. 33, N 6. – P. 702–717.