The AustLit Gateway and Scholarly Bibliography: A Specialist Implementation of the FRBR

This paper discusses how the AustLit: Australian Literature Gateway's interpretation, enhancement, and implementation of the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions' Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR Final Report 1998) model is meeting the needs of Australian literature scholars for accurate bibliographic representation of the histories of literary texts. It also explores how the AustLit Gateway's underpinning research principles, which are based on the tradition of scholarly enumerative and descriptive bibliography, with enhancements from analytical bibliography and literary biography, have impacted upon our implementation of the FRBR model. The major enhancement or alteration to the model is the use of enhanced manifestations, which allow the full representation of all agents' contributions to be shown in a highly granular format by enabling creation events to be incorporated at all levels of the Work, Expression, and Manifestation nexus.

A bibliographic snapshot of the telemedicine citation literature

There appear to have been no previous literature-based or literature-oriented studies in telemedicine which have analysed raw citation data. Using a simple search strategy, the Web of Science was analysed up to the end of 2005 to give a snapshot of the field, and to identify matters which would need to be considered in larger scale bibliometric studies. Of the 3673 telemedicine documents retrieved, 2213 (60%) had been cited. Of 56,875 citation records, 32,460 unique citation formats were found. The most-cited paper, and the paper with the greatest annual citation rate, was Perednia and Allen's review article in JAMA, 1995. The two specialist telemedicine journals published 40% of all papers retrieved. In the general literature (i.e. excluding the two specialist journals) there were 1556 citations to their 1374 'citable' articles, apportioned in the ratio 76:24, almost exactly in accordance with the distribution of the articles themselves. However, each of the two specialist telemedicine journals cited itself in a proportion higher than its share of original articles, with an 'excess' of self-citations of 14% in the journal of Telemedicine and Telecare, and 19% in the Telemedicine journal and E-Health. Despite certain technical difficulties, there is considerable scope for bibliometric research in telemedicine.