Jump to content

Talk:Comparison of reference management software

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bestchai (talk | contribs) at 21:32, 25 June 2008 (→‎gPapers: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Zotero

Great resource.

A few comments: the import table lists the following databases as unsupported by Zotero: Copac, CSA, ISI, Medline, Ovid, PubMed, SciFinder. I believe Ovid, CSA, and PubMed, however, all work with Zotero, as does Copac's experimental interface. And Medline is available via PubMed, Ovid, and Ebsco, all of which are Zotero-compatible. Karikraus 02:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also responded to you in the Zotero forums...
Thanks for the clarification. The import table is meant to list file formats which users can manually import, as opposed to sites that can be imported. If some of the site translators use the raw formats, perhaps they should be changed to "partial" & it should be made clear that Zotero can import that file type from a particular set of sites.
This differs from the "database connectivity" section, which is where the individual "site translators" belong.
Copac is a good example of this. They have their own tagged file format, but Zotero doesn't understand it. However, the site is adding COinS, which Zotero can read. If Copac was added to the database connectivity section, there would be a "yes" in it for Zotero. However, there would still be a "no" for the import file format.
Feel free to amend the wiki, though--that's why I put it here, rather than on my own site. --Karnesky 02:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

refworks pricing

Dunno how to reference in wiki but the price is 100$ individual, heres the link http://www.refworks.com/content/path_learn/purchase.asp tis pretty hidden on the site. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.86.134.31 (talk) 00:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Reference Manager

MODS support

Does someone have a reference (or even a screenshot) showing Reference Manager MODS XML export? --Karnesky 20:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not documented anywhere, so it seems to have been a false entry. --Karnesky 20:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Import formats

References for the import formats would be useful too. The product seems to conflate file import with database connectivity for PubMed/Medline/etc. --Karnesky 20:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In particular, can someone cite bibtex support? The other thompson products can't import this & the ftp site shows no filter. --Karnesky 11:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the program's own documentation and another comparison betray mistaken entries. --Karnesky 20:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other possible points of comparison

Some of these come from [1]:

  • Documentation
    • Reference manual
    • Tutorial
    • Context-sensitive Help screens
  • Support
    • Free vs. paid
    • mailing lists, forums, etc.
    • upgrade costs
  • Z39.50 searching
  • Duplicate detection
  • Attached documents
    • PDF/Graphics/other
    • Quantity of attachments
  • RSS
  • Subset management
  • unicode support
  • macros
  • keyboard shortcuts
  • relational database vs. flat database vs. flatfile
  • record types
  • subrecord types (e.g. letter in book in a series...)
  • modify and/or add fields
  • mandatory fields
  • spell checker
  • copy a record
  • global corrections
  • import
    • batch
    • subset of batch
  • related items (and the specific type(s) of relation(s) that you can denote)
  • Searching
    • regex
    • boolean, etc. operators
    • natural language
    • specific fields vs some fields vs all fields
  • Rich formatting (super/sub scripts; bold/underline/italics; semantic markup)
  • Miscellaneous
    • User-written plug-in architecture
    • Localization/translation
    • Citation formatting (as opposed to bibliographic formatting) -- in-text (context-sensitive), footnotes, endnotes
    • Store notes, quotations etc.
    • Multi-user or single-user (perhaps a column in the password/network section). This can be inferred from that section but is not explicitly stated
    • User and group bibliographies drawn from the main bibliography
    • CMS integration

Sirfragalot 05:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--Karnesky 20:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RSS

I don't know if citation file format is really the best place to include RSS support, but other projects had crammed their support in there. --Karnesky 14:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added it in for WIKINDX because another had it there. Whenever I see the heading 'Citation file format' I always have to think a bit about what it means -- some confusion with export format? If it means the file or stream format in which formatted bibliographies can be output to (as opposed to raw, unformatted output to bibtex, Endnote etc.), then RSS belongs here. Sirfragalot 05:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we could cleanup confusion somehow? This is how I'd define the two different categories:
  • export format -- computer readable format for data exchange
  • citation format -- way of storing stylized (APA, MLA, etc.) citations
For most applications, RSS doesn't fit in either of these very well--RSS feeds can only represent a single citation style. Perhaps it belongs in the networking table? --Karnesky 14:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re citation/export format confusion. Your suggestion makes sense (HTML, RTF etc then belong with bibtex, Endnote etc. as export formats and then you wouldn't need citation format as you already have citation styles. and, in this case, RSS as a 'computer readable format for data exchange' (XML actually) would belong in 'export format'. Sirfragalot 15:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With further reflection, I think the current situation (with RSS in citation file formats) is probably the best compromise, as not-networked apps such as BibDesk can produce RSS too.
I think it is useful to differentiate between file formats that can be imported into another database. There is no single standard for citation information in RSS, so import of that format is less trivial than for ant other format listed in the export table. While many RSS generators do not support multiple citation styles the way that HTML, LaTeX, RTF, and Plain text usually do, they usually contain HTML or textual information that is ultimately to be read my humans (rather than imported into some other piece of software). --Karnesky 22:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Environment

Perhaps something needed to indicate ancillary software required. e.g. refbase, wikindx etc. require a web server, PHP and MySQL. Also, both of these systems are listed as 'web-based' -- anyone looking for a single-user system may end up over-looking these two (and others) not realizing that, with the appropriate ancillary software, they can be run on a desktop machine. Sirfragalot 06:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is covered in "operating system support." Aigaion, Connotea, refbase, and wikindx all list "yes," whereas the proprietary apps that you can't use on a single-user system (Bibsonomy, CiteULike, and RefWorks) all list "N/A." --Karnesky 14:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I still think it's confusing for someone who's not familiar with the software or who is not that computer-literate. If you take wikindx as an example, it says it's web-based and runs on all the OSs listed. It doesn't indicate that it can be run by a single user on a desktop machine. Not does it state that in all cases, PHP and MySQL need to be installed. pybliographer, for example, requires python and others may work with different databases or just flat text files. Sirfragalot 15:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


AMEN to what is being said. A comparison page should include the delivery technologies: php/mysql vs. python, etc.

MonteShaffer 00:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of wiki software has columns for "programming language" and "data backend." Something similar would probably be a good idea. I was avoiding these at first, as most of the comparison entries are for desktop apps (where it is less of an issue) & half of the webapps are centrally hosted proprietary apps (where things are less relevant to end users & possibly unknown black boxes). Feel free to add these two columns--I've put in a brief description of "web-based" vs "centrally hosted" until someone adds this info. --Karnesky 23:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other software

  • I don't have time right now to investigate, but I think www.bibme.org should be added to this page.
  • Maybe it's worth to add also Biborb: biborb.glymn.net
  • OpenOffice.org also can handle references

Both of the above were added anonymously (with active urls). I think that this list should be limited to notable software. If someone feels that these are notable, the first step would be to write a WP article on them that asserts notability (so that it won't be deleted). --Karnesky 22:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about Latex/Bibtex? Zargulon 12:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Programs that use a bibtex file for storage are already listed. Several of the comparison points can't be applied to something which is essentially a backend/file format. That being said: feel free to try. --Karnesky 13:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right--see Bibdesk and JabRef. CHE 21:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria for inclusion

Other lists and comparison pages make having a WP article a pre-requisite of being on the page. This provides a test of notability, as the product can be challenged through AfD. We have several entries that are red links. Should we keep them (the only reason I haven't done a purge yet is because I like them) or adopt the same criteria for this page too? --Karnesky (talk) 17:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've commented them out for now. I'd support the creation or recreation of WP pages for the three products in question & would suggest that they then be uncommented. --Karnesky (talk) 05:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Production of Wikipedia-compatible Citation-lists

Two questions.

1) Does anyone know if any of these reference management software packages can generate Wikipedia-compatible citation templates of the "<ref...{cite..." variety?
2) If so, would other editors support adding this information to the table comparing the various packages?

My two cents: it would be a useful addition (maybe add another column) to the comparison table if at least one of these packages supports Wikipedia output styles today. N2e (talk) 16:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Yes. Zotero and refbase both do (and the latter can be used as a bibliographic manager for MediaWiki sites, allowing automatic building of a citation. Further: any reference manager with a way to make other citation formats can obviously be extended to allow WP citation template (usually fairly easily).
  2. Not at this time. WP:SELF. Zotero already mentions WP support. Perhaps refbase should too, but there's no reason for another column until more reference managers offer it. --Karnesky (talk) 16:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Database connectivity

The database connectivity table is biased towards the needs of academics in the sciences and tech sectors and so is misleading as to the real capabilities of the applications listed. Going by the table, RefWorks' connectivity looks terrible because (except for PubMed) all it offers falls under the "other" column. Now, I'm not a fan of RefWorks. In fact, I found the Wikipedia article because I was looking at alternatives. But the table ought to be rethought. Here are two columns that could be added, for instance. --Kartavyam (talk) 13:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Software JSTOR ATLA Religion Database
Aigaion ? ?
BibDesk ? ?
Biblioscape ? ?
BibSonomy ? ?
Bibus ? ?
CiteULike ? ?
Connotea ? ?
EndNote ? ?
JabRef ? ?
ProCite ? ?
Pybliographer ? ?
refbase ? ?
RefDB ? ?
Reference Manager ? ?
RefWorks Yes Yes
Sente ? ?
Wikindx ? ?
Zotero ? ?
Software JSTOR ATLA Religion Database
It is currently limited, but I'd hardly call it 'biased.' We should eventually add MANY more online databases (in addition to ATLA & JSTOR). Feel free to add these! --Karnesky (talk) 15:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well "bias" is not necessarily intentional. As for adding columns to the table, is the best thing to just add columns with a bunch of question marks to the article itself? Or should new columns be staged on the discussion page and then moved to the article when they've been filled enough (e.g. > 50%). BTW, the table fragment above was intended for staging, people should feel free to edit it and add what they know. --Kartavyam (talk) 10:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ideally, neither: someone would do the leg work of looking up references (such as the other comparisons that this article links to) so that they could complete the other columns. One should not rely on their personal experience testing applications for adding information anyway. Rather than long tables on the talk page (such as the one above), a simple list of the databases that should be added might be more helpful. Perhaps a table would be o.k. on a subpage, but it seems "heavy" for a discussion page & would be harder to track & is unusual to find on other talk pages. If most of the rows can be completed, I think it is fine for their to be question marks in the main article. --Karnesky (talk) 13:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this ideal scenario is not something I can contribute to, for lack of time. As for personal experience, there's a difference between what somebody who relies on the marketing literature and documentation but does not use the software can tell you and what somebody who actually uses the software can tell you. For instance, yes, RefWorks exports to BibTeX but what the RefWorks people don't tell you is that it does not treat accented characters in a safe way (BibTeX chokes on what is exported by RefWorks) and it creates utterly useless keys to use in \cite commands. I've had to write my own python tool to clean up what RefWorks exports. In effect, this makes the BibTeX export capability of RefWorks useless for people who can't or don't want to deal with cleaning up the mess. This is a piece of information that could materially impact whether someone wants to use RefWorks or not but you don't get that from the literature provided by the company nor from people who perform a mere cursory inspection of the software. Only actual experience with the software will reveal this shortcoming. --Kartavyam (talk) 14:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to WP:NOR. I never said we should rely on marketing literature--in many cases, features will be documented by some third party (such as those we link to) that hopefully satisfy WP:RS. --Karnesky (talk) 14:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

gPapers

There's an article for the GPapers project but its not listed in this article. I think its worth adding, seeing that its a fully functional OpenSource alternative to some of the more popular ref management software like Papers. Anyone disagree, or should I go ahead and add a row to each of the tables? Bestchai (talk) 21:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Comparison_of_reference_management_software&oldid=221737421"