Those who still are involved in training the next generation (or as editors improving the training of the current generation) might well pay careful attention to the following from Ronnie (as well as to encouraging the use of bibtex):

It should be emphasised that the ethics and practice of citation for an individual paper are unclear and probably untaught, except possibly through the admonishments of editors. Certainly scholarship in itself is generally unrewarded. What gets the most fame is a solution to a famous problem; and this is partly because the judgement of the achievement is easy, and could almost be set up as a computer program, as for tennis rankings. Opening new areas, or problem formulation, gives a more difficult task to assess: as they say, predicting the future has its problems. And it may take many years or decades for the true implications to sink in.

Should a citation be to the original paper, or to the most recent and possibly best exposition (the latest author has the advantage of someone else doing the spadework)? There is always an attraction in citing a famous author, which gives a certain cachet, even if the idea came from someone relatively unknown. There is the practice of changing terminology, so that the original paper looks old fashioned, and in any case dealt with oomla when `everyone' nowadays calls it bamloo.

How far back in the history of an idea or technique should citations go?

There is no established framework for good practice in citations dealing with all these matters.

Thus the idea of using citations as a basis for assessment of importance is hazardous in the extreme. This is emphasised in the IMU report.

Will the national Mathematical Societies be prepared to speak out publicly on these key issues; or be willing to beard the Thomson/ISI lion; or subject the basis of what ISI call `Essential Science' to ridicule; or state publicly that the ISI journal evaluation process has little open quality assurance?

Ronnie