s tymi referenciami nesuhlasim:

1. Citations as words: Number two pet peeve: Using citations as words. van Leunen again: “Brackets are not words. A bracketed number is just a pointer, not a word. Never, ever, use a bracketed number as if it were the name of an author or a work.” (p. 20). So instead of “A similar strategy is described in [15].”), use instead “A similar strategy is discussed by AuthorOne et al. [15]”. The way you can get this right in your head is considering a journal that does citations as superscripts (like the old Graphics Hardware style). It looks really stupid to say “A similar strategy is discussed by 15.” I don't like this particular style for citation, but it does make sure citations aren't used as words.
minimalne v nasom odbore vaecsina ludi pise "discussed in [15]" a pod. a podla mna v tom nie je ziaden problem, je to strucnejsie a neprichadza k ziadnym nedorozumeniam

3. Sorting your references: If at all possible, arrange your reference list in alphabetical order by author's last name. Going in cited order is much less useful to readers of your paper. The only reason I've heard that cited-order is useful is in a survey article where nearby (and presumably related) citations from the paper are next to each other in the bibliography. I don't find this argument particularly compelling.
neviem poriadne slovami vyjadrit ako nenavidim abecedne zoradene referencie. najhorsie, najhorsie, najhorsie. proste citam clanok, pride 10 citacii a teraz musim preskakovat zo strany na stranu aby som nasiel co sa cituje. prosim nerobte to.