Purpose-This article explores citing and referencing systems in Social Sciences and Medicine articles from different theoretical and practical perspectives, considering bibliographic references as a facet of descriptive representation. Design/methodology/approach-The analysis of citing and referencing elements (i.e. bibliographic references, mentions, quotations, and respective in-text reference pointers) identified citing and referencing habits within disciplines under consideration and errors occurring over the long term as stated by previous studies now expanded. Future expected trends of information retrieval from bibliographic metadata was gathered by approaching these referencing elements from the FRBR Entities concepts. Findings-Reference styles do not fully accomplish with their role of guiding authors and publishers on providing concise and well-structured bibliographic metadata within bibliographic references. Trends on representative description revision suggest a predicted distancing on the ways information is approached by bibliographic references and bibliographic catalogs adopting FRBR concepts, including the description levels adopted by each of them under the perspective of the FRBR Entities concept. Research limitations-This study was based on a subset of Medicine and Social Sciences articles published in 2019 and, therefore, it may not be taken as a final and broad coverage. Future studies expanding these approaches to other disciplines and chronological periods are encouraged. Originality-By approaching citing and referencing issues as descriptive representation's facets, findings on this study may encourage further studies that will support Information Science and Computer Science on providing tools to become bibliographic metadata description simpler, better structured and more efficient facing the revision of descriptive representation actually in progress.

Introductioǹ`Outsourcing'', or the use of outside contractors for important parts of a business's operations, seems to have begun in the automobile industry in the 1980s, but has become an issue in the library community since Wright State University eliminated its cataloging department in the early 1990s. Certainly, the timing of discussions in the library professions relates to three very prominent cases, starting with the elimination of the cataloging department at Wright State University in 1993, followed by outsourcing the entire library of the law firm of Baker & MacKenzie in 1995, and the elimination of both cataloging and selection from the entire public library system of the state of Hawaii in the same year.Since then, hundreds of publications, conference papers and other discussions of the subject have appeared in the library world. While the most complete listing of this material appears in the ALA sponsored report on the subject (Martin et al., 2000), useful selective annotated bibliographies are also available in Colver (1997) and Be Ânaud and Bordeianu (1999). Although the vast majority of this material tends to polemics and how-we-did-it descriptions, there are also a number of analyses of both the philosophical and practical issues raised. DefinitionStrangely, given the interest in outsourcing, there is little consensus on what the term actually means, a problem possibly related to the use of terminology from outside librarianship (Miller, 1995).Richard Abel, the founder of approval plans, defines outsourcing as``simply the contracting out of a variety of`backroom' functions to suppliers in the private sector'' (Abel, 1998), but then gives use of Library of Congress printed cards as an example, although LC is clearly not in the``private sector'' . Other writers use terminology similar to Baker's:``a method employed by an organisation to hire or contract with an outside individual, vendor, or agency toThe author

Reports on a comparison of the 1992 Lambda Book Award titles and a sample of titles reviewed in the Lambda Book Report with a control group of titles listed in Publishers Weekly, “Forecasts”. Finds that while the Lambda Award titles received about the same number of reviews as the control group titles, the LBR sample received significantly fewer reviews. However, both samples of gay/lesbian/ bisexual books are held in significantly fewer OCLC libraries than are the control titles. Examines the content of reviews of sample books and finds that they show no apparent bias on the part of the reviewers.

No abstract