A comprehensive bibliography on relevant logic was put together by Robert Wolff and can be found in Anderson, Belnap and Dunn 1992. The bibliography in Restall 2000 is not as comprehensive as Wolff’s, but it does include material up to the end of the 20th Century.

Books on Substructural Logic and Introductions to the Field

• Anderson, A.R., and Belnap, N.D., 1975, Entailment: The Logic of Relevance and Necessity, Princeton, Princeton University Press, Volume I.
• Anderson, A.R., Belnap, N.D. Jr., and Dunn, J.M., 1992, Entailment, Volume II, Princeton, Princeton University Press.
  [This book and the previous one summarise the work in relevant logic in the Anderson–Belnap tradition. Some chapters in these books have other authors, such as Robert K. Meyer and Alasdair Urquhart.]
• Barrio, E. and Égré (2022) “Substructural Logics and Metainferences” Journal of Philosophical Logic, 51: 1215–1231.
  [A summary of recent work on reflexivity and the Cut rule and characterising different logics in terms of the metainferences they admit.]
• Bimbó, K. and Dunn, J. M., 2008, Generalised Galois Logics: Relational Semantics of Nonclassical Logical Calculi, CSLI Lecture Notes, v. 188, CSLI, Stanford.
  [A systematic treatment of the ternary relational semantics and its generalisations for substructural logics.]
• Dunn, J. M. and Restall, G., 2000, “Relevance Logic” in F. Guenthner and D. Gabbay (eds.), Handbook of Philosophical Logic second edition; Volume 6, Kluwer, pp 1–136.
  [A summary of work in relevant logic in the Anderson–Belnap tradition.]
• Galatos, N., P. Jipsen, T. Kowalski, and H. Ono, 2007, Residuated Lattices: An Algebraic Glimpse at Substructural Logics (Studies in Logic: Volume 151), Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2007.
• Mares, Edwin D., 2004, Relevant Logic: a philosophical interpretation Cambridge University Press.
  [An introduction to relevant logic, proposing an information theoretic understanding of the ternary relational semantics.]
• Moortgat, Michael, 1988, Categorial Investigations: Logical Aspects of the Lambek Calculus Foris, Dordrecht.
  [An introduction to the Lambek calculus.]
• Moot, Richard and Retoré Christian (2012) The Logic of Categorical Grammars, Springer, Berlin.
  [An introduction to the Lambek calculus, including its non-associative variant, multimodal calculi, linear logic and proof nets.]
• Morrill, Glyn, 1994, Type Logical Grammar: Categorial Logic of Signs Kluwer, Dordrecht
  [An introduction to the Lambek calculus.]
• Ono, Hiroakira, 2019, Proof Theory and Algebra in Logic Springer, Singapore
  [Not exclusively on substructural logics, this treatment of the relationship between proof theory and algebra treats logical systems quite generally, and includes substructural logics in its remit.]
• Paoli, Francesco, 2002, Substructural Logics: A Primer Kluwer, Dordrecht
  [A general introduction to substructural logics.]
• Read, S., 1988, Relevant Logic, Oxford: Blackwell.
  [An introduction to relevant logic motivated by considerations in the theory of meaning. Develops a Lemmon-style proof theory for the relevant logic \(\mathbf{R}\).]
• Restall, Greg, 2000, An Introduction to Substructural Logics, Routledge. (online précis)
  [A general introduction to the field of substructural logics.]
• Routley, R., Meyer, R.K., Plumwood, V., and Brady, R., 1983, Relevant Logics and their Rivals, Volume I, Atascardero, CA: Ridgeview.
  [Another distinctive account of relevant logic, this time from an Australian philosophical perspective.]
• Schroeder-Heister, Peter, and Došen, Kosta, (eds), 1993, Substructural Logics, Oxford University Press.
  [An edited collection of essays on different topics in substructural logics, from different traditions in the field.]
• Troestra, Anne, 1992, Lectures on Linear Logic, CSLI Publications
  [A quick, easy-to-read introduction to Girard’s linear logic.]
• Zardini, Elia, 2021, “Substructural Approaches to Paradox,” Synthese, 199: 493–525.
  [A summary of recent work on substructural approaches to paradox.]

Other Works Cited

• Ackermann, Wilhelm, 1956, “Begründung Einer Strengen Implikation,” Journal of Symbolic Logic, 21: 113–128.
• Avron, Arnon, 1988, “The Semantics and Proof Theory of Linear Logic,” Theoretical Computer Science, 57(2–3): 161–184.
• Barrio, Eduardo; Lucas Rosenblatt, and Diego Tajer, 2014, “The Logics of Strict-Tolerant Logic,” Journal of Philosophical Logic, 44:5, 551–571.
• Barrio, Eduardo; Federico Pailos, and Damian Szmuc, 2019, “A Hierarchy of Classical and Paraconsistent Logics,” Journal of Philosophical Logic, 49:1, 93–120.
• Bellin, Gianluigi; Martin Hyland, Edmund Robinson, and Christian Urban, 2006, “Categorical Proof Theory of Classical Propositional Calculus,” Theoretical Computer Science, 364: 146–165.
• Brandom, Robert, 2000 Articulating Reasons, Harvard University Press.
• Church, Alonzo, 1951, “The Weak Theory of Implication,” in Kontrolliertes Denken: Untersuchungen zum Logikkalkül und zur Logik der Einzelwissenschaften, A. Menne, A. Wilhelmy and H. Angsil (eds.), Kommissions-Verlag Karl Alber, 22–37.
• Cobreros, Pablo; Paul Égré, David Ripley and Robert van Rooij, 2012, ‘Tolerant, Classical, Strict’ Journal of Philosophical Logic, 21:347–385.
• Curry, Haskell B., 1977, Foundations of Mathematical Logic, New York: Dover (originally published in 1963).
• Dunn, J.M., 1991, “Gaggle Theory: An Abstraction of Galois Connections and Residuation with Applications to Negation and Various Logical Operations,” in Logics in AI, Proceedings European Workshop JELIA 1990 (Lecture notes in Computer Science, Volume 476), Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
• –––, 1993, “Star and Perp,” Philosophical Perspectives, 7: 331–357.
• Field, H., 2008, Saving Truth from Paradox, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Fine, K., 1989, “Incompleteness for Quantified Relevance Logics,” in J. Norman and R. Sylvan (eds.), Directions in Relevant Logic, Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 205–225.
• Fjellstand, Andreas, 2015. “How a Semantics for Tonk Should Be,” Review of Symbolic Logic, 8:488–505.
• French, Rohan, 2016. “Structural Reflexivity and the Paradoxes of Self-Reference,”, Ergo, 3 No. 05. doi:10.3998/ergo.12405314.0003.005
• Geach, P. T., 1955, “On Insolubilia,” Analysis, 15: 71–72.
• Gentzen, Gerhard, 1935, “Untersuchungen über das logische Schließen,” Mathematische Zeitschrift, 39: 176–210 and 405–431.
  [An English translation is found in Gentzen 1969.]
• –––, 1969, The Collected Papers of Gerhard Gentzen, M. E. Szabo (ed.), Amsterdam: North Holland, 1969.
• Girard, Jean-Yves, 1987, “Linear Logic,” Theoretical Computer Science, 50: 1–101.
• –––, 1987b, Proof Theory and Logical Complexity, Volume 1, Bibliopolis, Naples.
• Goldblatt, R., and E. Mares, 2006, “An Alternative Semantics for Quantified Relevant Logic,” Journal of Symbolic Logic, 71(1): 163–187.
• Hösli, Brigitte and Gerhard Jäger, 1994. “About Some Symmetries of Negation,” Journal of Symbolic Logic 59(2):473–485.
• Jäger, Gerhard, 1993, “Some proof-theoretic aspects of logic programming,” p. 113–142 in Logic and Algebra of Specification, F. Bauer, W. Brauer and H. Schwichtenberg (ed.), Springer.
• Lambek, Joachim, 1958, “The Mathematics of Sentence Structure,” American Mathematical Monthly, 65: 154–170.
• –––, 1961, “On the Calculus of Syntactic Types, ” in Structure of Language and its Mathematical Aspects (Proceedings of Symposia in Applied Mathematics, XII), R. Jakobson (ed.), Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society.
• Moh Shaw-Kwei, 1950, “The Deduction Theorems and Two New Logical Systems,” Methodos, 2: 56–75.
• Moortgat, Michael, 1995, “Multimodal Linguistic Inference,” Logic Journal of the IGPL, 3: 371–401.
• Ono, Hiroakira, 2003, “Substructural Logics and Residuated Lattices – an Introduction,” in V. Hendricks and J. Malinowski (eds.), Trends in Logic: 50 Years of Studia Logica, Dordrecht: Kluwer, 2003, pp. 193–228.
• Reiter, Raymond, 1980. “A Logic for Default Reasoning,” Artificial Intelligence, 13:81–132.
• Ripley, David, 2012, “Conservatively Extending Classical Logic with Transparent Truth’ The Review of Symbolic Logic, 5:354–378.
• Rooij, Robert van, 2011, “Vagueness, tolerance and non-transitive entailment,’ in P. Cintula, C. Fermüller, L. Godo, and P. Hajek (eds.), Reasoning Under Vagueness: Logical, Philosophical and Linguistic Perspectives, College Publications, pp. 205–222.
• Routley, R., 1980. “Problems and Solutions in Semantics in Quantified Relevant Logics,” in A. Arruda, R. Chuaqui, and N.C.A. Da Costa (eds.), Mathematical Logic in Latin America, Amsterdam: North Holland, 1980, pp. 305–340.
• Schütte, Kurt, 1960. “Syntactical and Semantical Properties of Simple Type Theory,” Journal of Symbolic Logic, 25:305–326.
• Tennant, Neil, 2017. Core Logic, Oxford University Press.
• Troelstra, A.S., 1992, “Lectures on Linear Logic”, CSLI Lecture Notes (Number 29), Stanford: CSLI Publications.
• Weir, Alan, 2005. “Naive Truth and Sophisticated Logic” in Jc Beall and B. Armour-Garb (eds.), Deflationism and Paradox, pages 218–249.
• Zardini, Elia, 2008. “A Model of Tolerance,” Studia Logica 90(3), 337–368.