[1. Bornmann, L., Marx, W. (2014). How to evaluate individual researchers working in the natural and life sciences meaningfully? A proposal of methods based on percentiles of citations. Scientometrics, Vol. 98, No. 1, pp. 487-509.10.1007/s11192-013-1161-y]Search in Google Scholar
[2. Charnes, A., Cooper, W.W., Rhodes, E. (1978). Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 2, No. 6, pp. 429-444.10.1016/0377-2217(78)90138-8]Search in Google Scholar
[3. Cherchye, L., Moesen, W., Rogge, N., Van Puyenbroeck, T. (2007). An introduction to ‘benefit of the doubt’composite indicators. Social Indicators Research, Vol. 82, No. 1, pp.111-145.10.1007/s11205-006-9029-7]Search in Google Scholar
[4. Davenport, T. H., Patil, D. J. (2012). Data Scientist: The Sexiest Job of the 21st Century. Harvard Business Review, 70, October 2012.]Search in Google Scholar
[5. Dobrota, M., Bulajic, M., Bornmann, L., Jeremic, V. (2016). A new approach to QS University Ranking using composite I-distance indicator: uncertainty and sensitivity analyses. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, Vol. 67, No. 1, pp. 200-211.10.1002/asi.23355]Search in Google Scholar
[6. Dobrota, M., Jeremic, V. (in press). Shedding the Light on the Stability of University Rankings in the ICT Field. IETE Technical Review.]Search in Google Scholar
[7. Dobrota, M., Martic, M., Bulajic, M., Jeremic, V. (2015). Two-phased composite I-distance indicator approach for evaluation of countries’ information development. Telecommunications Policy, Vol. 39, No. 5, pp. 406-420.10.1016/j.telpol.2015.03.003]Search in Google Scholar
[8. Federkeil, G. (2015). Doing Field-based Rankings: Lessons Learned from U-Multirank and CHE-rankings, in Subject and Discipline Related Rankings - a More Inclusive Approach to University Performance (IREG 2015)]Search in Google Scholar
[9. Intelligence Unit. (2015). QS World University Rankings by Subject. Available on: http://www.iu.qs.com/university-rankings/subject-tables/ [9 January 2015]]Search in Google Scholar
[10. IREG. (2015). Rankings by Subject. Available on: http://iregobservatory.org/en/index.php/forum-aalborg-invitation [28 December 2015]]Search in Google Scholar
[11. Ivanovic, B. (1977). Classification theory. Belgrade: Institute for Industrial Economics.]Search in Google Scholar
[12. Jeremic, V., Bulajic, M., Martic, M., Radojicic, Z. (2011). A fresh approach to evaluating the academic ranking of world universities. Scientometrics, Vol. 87, No. 3, pp. 587-596.10.1007/s11192-011-0361-6]Search in Google Scholar
[13. Jovanovic-Milenkovic, M., Brajovic, B., Milenkovic, D., Vukmirovic, D., Jeremic, V. (2015). Beyond the equal-weight framework of the Networked Readiness Index a multilevel Idistance methodology. Information Development. In press.]Search in Google Scholar
[14. Marginson, S. (2014). University rankings and social science. European Journal of Education, Vol. 49, No. 1, pp. 45-59.10.1111/ejed.12061]Search in Google Scholar
[15. Maričić, M., Bulajić, M., Dobrota, M. (2016a). The alteration of U21 ranking methodology: from expert-driven to data-driven weighting scheme. Proceedings of the SYMORG 2016 Conference, June 10-13, Zlatibor, Serbia, pp. 84-91.]Search in Google Scholar
[16. Maricic, M., Bulajic, M., Dobrota, M, Jeremic, V. (2016b). Redesigning The Global Food Security Index: A Multivariate Composite I-Distance Indicator Approach. International Journal of Food and Agricultural Economics, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 69-86.]Search in Google Scholar
[17. Maricic, M., Kostic-Stankovic, M. (2016). Towards an impartial Responsible Competitiveness Index: a twofold multivariate I-distance approach. Quality & Quantity, Vol. 50, No. 1, pp. 103-120.10.1007/s11135-014-0139-z]Search in Google Scholar
[18. Melyn, W., Moesen, W. (1991). Towards a synthetic indicator of macroeconomic performance: unequal weighting when limited information is available. Public Economics Research Paper 17, CES, KU Leuven.]Search in Google Scholar
[19. Mizobuchi, H. (2014). Measuring world better life frontier: a composite indicator for OECD better life index. Social Indicators Research, Vol. 118, No. 3, pp. 987-1007.10.1007/s11205-013-0457-x]Search in Google Scholar
[20. Nardo, M., Saisana, M., Saltelli, A., Tarantola, S., Hoffman, A., Giovannini, E. (2005). Handbook on constructing composite indicators: methodology and user guide. (No. 2005/3). OECD publishing]Search in Google Scholar
[21. Perišić, A. (2015). Data-driven weights and restrictions in the construction of composite indicators. Croatian Operational Research Review, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 29-42.10.17535/crorr.2015.0003]Search in Google Scholar
[22. QS. (2015a). QS World University Rankings by Subject: Methodology. Available on: http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings-articles/university-subject-rankings/qsworld- university-rankings-subject-methodology [8 January 2016]]Search in Google Scholar
[23. QS. (2015b). QS World University Rankings by Subject 2015 - Statistics & Operational Research. Available at http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/universitysubject-rankings/2015/statistics-operationalresearch#sorting=rank+region=+country=+faculty=+stars=false+search= [Accessed 15 January 2016]]Search in Google Scholar
[24. Radojicic, M., Savic, G., Radovanovic, S., Jeremic, V. (2015). A novel bootstrap dba-dea approach in evaluating efficiency of banks. Scientific Bulletin" Mircea cel Batran" Naval Academy, Vol. 18, No. 2, pp. 375-384.]Search in Google Scholar
[25. Rauhvargers, A. (2013). Global university rankings and their impact: Report II. pp. 21-23. Brussels: European University Association.]Search in Google Scholar
[26. Rauhvargers, A. (2014). Where are the global rankings leading us? An analysis of recent methodological changes and new developments. European Journal of Education, Vol. 49, No. 1, pp. 29-44.10.1111/ejed.12066]Search in Google Scholar
[27. Rogge, N., (2012). Undesirable specialization in the construction of composite policy indicators: The Environmental Performance Index. Ecological indicators, Vol. 23, pp.143-154.10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.03.020]Search in Google Scholar
[28. Saisana, M., Saltelli, A. (2014). JCR statistical audit of the WJP Rule of Law index 2014. In World Justice Project: The World Justice Project Rule of Law Index 2014, pp. 188-197]Search in Google Scholar
[29. Siwinski, W. (2015). The era of rankings by subject is coming [Online]. Available on: http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20150803133240109 [12 January 2016]]Search in Google Scholar
[30. UN. (2014). The Post ‐ 2015 Development Agenda: The Role of Statistical Community. Available on: http://www.un.org/esa/population/meetings/twelfthcoord2014/documents/presentations/KEIKO_presentation_12CM.pdf. [5 January 2016]]Search in Google Scholar
[31. Ziman, J. (2000). Real Science. What it Is, and What it Means. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.10.1017/CBO9780511541391]Search in Google Scholar
[32. Zornic, N., Bornmann, L., Maricic, M., Markovic, A., Martic, M., Jeremic, V. (2015). Ranking institutions within a university based on their scientific performance: A percentile-based approach. El Profesional de la informacion, Vol. 24, No. 5, pp. 551-566. 10.3145/epi.2015.sep.05]Search in Google Scholar