共查询到20条相似文献，搜索用时 250 毫秒
1.
Zhang Y 《Medical reference services quarterly》2012,31(1):45-60
Bibliographic management tools have been widely used by researchers to store, organize, and manage their references for research papers, theses, dissertations, journal articles, and other publications. There are a number of reference management tools available. In order for users to decide which tool is best for their needs, it is important to know each tool's strengths and weaknesses. This article compares four reference management tools, one of which is licensed by University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey libraries and the other three are open source and freely available. They were chosen based on their functionality, ease of use, availability to library users, and popularity. These four tools are EndNote/EndNote Web, Zotero, Connotea, and Mendeley Desktop/Mendeley Web. Each tool is analyzed in terms of the following features: accessing, collecting, organizing, collaborating, and citing/formatting. A comparison table is included to summarize the key features of these tools. 相似文献
2.
In the past, librarians taught reference management by training library users to use established software programs such as RefWorks or EndNote. In today's environment, there is a proliferation of Web-based programs that are being used by library clientele that offer a new twist on the well-known reference management programs. Basically, these new programs are PDF-manager software (e.g., Mendeley or Papers). Librarians are faced with new questions, issues, and concerns, given the new workflows and pathways that these PDF-manager programs present. This article takes a look at some of those. 相似文献
3.
Jiří Kratochvíl 《The Journal of Academic Librarianship》2017,43(1):57-66
Bibliographical references to online and printed articles, books, contributions to edited books and web resources generated by EndNote, Mendeley, RefWorks and Zotero were compared with manually written references according to the citation instructions in 15 biomedical journals and the NLM citation style. The fewest mistakes were detected in references generated by Zotero for 11 journals and the NLM style, while the second fewest number of mistakes was found in Mendeley. The largest number of mistakes for 9 journals was found in references generated by EndNote and in the other 4 journals the largest number of mistakes was detected in RefWorks references. With regard to the individual types of resources, the lowest number of mistakes was shown by Zotero, while RefWorks had the greatest number of mistakes. All programs had problems especially with generating the URL and the date of access in the reference to online documents. It was also found that several mistakes were caused by technical limitations of the reference managers, while other mistakes originated due to incorrect setting of the citation styles. A comparison showed that Zotero and Mendeley are the most suitable managers. 相似文献
4.
This article describes the experiences of librarians at the Research Medical Library embedded within clinical teams at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center and their efforts to enhance communication within their teams using Web 2.0 tools. Pros and cons of EndNote Web, Delicious, Connotea, PBWorks, and SharePoint are discussed. 相似文献
5.
Melissa Gomis Carole Gall Frances A. Brahmi 《Medical reference services quarterly》2013,32(3):260-271
ABSTRACT The authors of this article analyzed the differences in output when searching MEDLINE direct and MEDLINE via citation management software, EndNote X1®, EndNote Web®, and RefWorks©. Several searches were performed on Ovid MEDLINE and PubMed directly. These searches were compared against the same searches conducted in Ovid MEDLINE and PubMed using the search features in EndNote X1, EndNote Web, and RefWorks. Findings indicated that for in-depth research users, should search the databases directly rather than through the citation management software interface. The search results indicated it would be appropriate to search databases via citation management software for citation verification tasks and for cursory keyword searching. 相似文献
6.
Marie Speare 《The Journal of Academic Librarianship》2018,44(6):762-774
Graduate students at the University of Manitoba were surveyed to find out if they used reference management software (RMS), features used, challenges and barriers to using RMS. Interest in different types of PDF management features and training options were also investigated. Both users and non-users of reference management software were invited to participate. Non-users managed their citations and references with a variety of other tools. The principal reasons for non-use were that students were not aware of options that were available, and the amount of time needed to learn the program. RMS users also mentioned the steep learning curve, problems with extracting metadata from PDFs, technical issues, and problems with inaccurate citation styles. Most of the students saved PDF documents to their computer. Students were most interested in full-text searching of PDFs, automatic renaming of PDFs, and automatically extracting citation metadata from a PDF. PDF annotation and reading tools were also of some interest. Mobile features were of the least interest. There were no statistically significant differences in the interest of PDF management features between the user and non-user groups but there were statistically significant differences in the interest of some of the training options between the groups. 相似文献
7.
8.
In this paper we present a first large-scale analysis of the relationship between Mendeley readership and citation counts with particular documents’ bibliographic characteristics. A data set of 1.3 million publications from different fields published in journals covered by the Web of Science (WoS) has been analyzed. This work reveals that document types that are often excluded from citation analysis due to their lower citation values, like editorial materials, letters, news items, or meeting abstracts, are strongly covered and saved in Mendeley, suggesting that Mendeley readership can reliably inform the analysis of these document types. Findings show that collaborative papers are frequently saved in Mendeley, which is similar to what is observed for citations. The relationship between readership and the length of titles and number of pages, however, is weaker than for the same relationship observed for citations. The analysis of different disciplines also points to different patterns in the relationship between several document characteristics, readership, and citation counts. Overall, results highlight that although disciplinary differences exist, readership counts are related to similar bibliographic characteristics as those related to citation counts, reinforcing the idea that Mendeley readership and citations capture a similar concept of impact, although they cannot be considered as equivalent indicators. 相似文献
9.
10.
EndNote个人参考文献图书馆简介与基本使用方法* 总被引：6，自引：0，他引：6
介绍了EndNo te 个人参考文献图书馆的作用、应用环境和创建方法。举例说明了如何将文献输入到EndNo te 图书馆中的三种方法: 简单的手工输入; 先保存数据库的检索结果, 然后再借助于对应的数据库过滤文件进行输入; 利用不同数据库或O PAC 系统的联机检索文件来直接检索并输入。介绍了如何对EndNo te 图书馆进行检索、分类重排和显示的方法, 以及如何按照常用的引文和参考文献的著录格式, 将参考文献插入或输出到文本文件中。 相似文献
11.
《The Reference Librarian》2013,54(91-92):117-138
Summary The structure of ready reference Web sites in American public and academic libraries reflects answers to consistently encountered design questions. A survey of 100 Web sites shows widespread agreement about naming these resources, using subject categories, and relying on free unlicensed Web sources for content. Opinions are divided about the optimum number of listed sources and the best ways to organize hot links. Guides and explanations rarely are provided for users. Librarians have not built these sites around commercial products, although advanced search features could make the purchase of ready reference tools more appealing. Further study of user behavior would help librarians meet the needs of their clientele. 相似文献
12.
13.
[目的/意义]通过对Mendeley阅读数据的分析,探讨引用行为之外更广范围的论文使用行为,以进一步完善学术论文的影响力评价体系。[方法/过程]选择社会学、历史学、生态学和应用物理学四个学科领域,从Scopus、Altmetric.com采集被引数据和阅读数据,并进行相关性分析。从身份、国别以及学科三个角度对Mendeley阅读数据Top100的文献用户身份和行为特征进行深入的探究。[结果/结论]在四个学科文献集合中,Mendeley阅读数据均比被引频次的覆盖率高,说明引用行为只是论文使用的冰山一角。对于不同使用动机的用户,其使用行为都存在学科差异;不同国家使用者对论文的使用习惯有地域差异;学术论文的跨学科使用情况与自身学科特性密切相关。 相似文献
14.
利用EndNote提高编辑工作效率 总被引：5，自引：1，他引：4
作为一款优秀的参考文献管理软件,EndNote在作者中使用广泛,但编辑利用不多。部分使用EndNote的作者并未将其格式按期刊的要求设置好。文章简介EndNote的功能、在编辑工作中的设置和使用方法。这有利于期刊编辑提高工作效率。展望了参考文献管理工具的发展趋势,提醒期刊编辑紧跟现代技术的发展。 相似文献
15.
In the past, librarians taught reference management by training library users to use established software programs such as RefWorks or EndNote. In today's environment, there is a proliferation of Web-based programs that are being used by library clientele that offer a new twist on the well-known reference management programs. Basically, these new programs are PDF-manager software (e.g., Mendeley or Papers). Librarians are faced with new questions, issues, and concerns, given the new workflows and pathways that these PDF-manager programs present. This article takes a look at some of those. 相似文献
16.
《The Reference Librarian》2013,54(74):91-101
Summary Among the many ways the World Wide Web has changed libraries are the additional tools gained by librarians and library users for answering reference questions. In addition to the growing number of licensed resources providing the full text of articles from newspapers, magazines, academic journals, and reference works are the millions of free Web sites offering an incredible variety of information about everything. Locating the most useful of these sites and organizing them into categories on library Web sites can be enormously beneficial both to patrons and libraries. After deciding to make their sites reference portals, librarians must make a number of important decisions. 相似文献
17.
常用文献管理软件功能比较 总被引：4，自引：0，他引：4
赵飞 《现代图书情报技术》2012,(3):67-72
从用户的使用角度出发,在选择和使用文献管理软件方面对国内外7款常用文献管理软件的一些细节功能进行比较,分析各自的优势和不足,同时探讨文献管理软件的发展趋势。 相似文献
18.
The purpose of this study is to investigate how archivists conduct reference services. The investigators administered two surveys to 19 participants at 15 Canadian academic archives to understand archivists’ behaviour while performing reference. There is no standard approach to reference as many archivists use institution-specific tools coupled with their own knowledge. Finding aids are the most frequently accessed tool and are most often used in conjunction with other tools. Limited resources are the primary barrier to the provision of effective reference services. The tools that are employed by archives are archivist focused, which results in reference services that are not user focused. 相似文献
19.
Dissertations can be the single most important scholarly outputs of junior researchers. Whilst sets of journal articles are often evaluated with the help of citation counts from the Web of Science or Scopus, these do not index dissertations and so their impact is hard to assess. In response, this article introduces a new multistage method to extract Google Scholar citation counts for large collections of dissertations from repositories indexed by Google. The method was used to extract Google Scholar citation counts for 77,884 American doctoral dissertations from 2013 to 2017 via ProQuest, with a precision of over 95%. Some ProQuest dissertations that were dual indexed with other repositories could not be retrieved with ProQuest-specific searches but could be found with Google Scholar searches of the other repositories. The Google Scholar citation counts were then compared with Mendeley reader counts, a known source of scholarly-like impact data. A fifth of the dissertations had at least one citation recorded in Google Scholar and slightly fewer had at least one Mendeley reader. Based on numerical comparisons, the Mendeley reader counts seem to be more useful for impact assessment purposes for dissertations that are less than two years old, whilst Google Scholar citations are more useful for older dissertations, especially in social sciences, arts and humanities. Google Scholar citation counts may reflect a more scholarly type of impact than that of Mendeley reader counts because dissertations attract a substantial minority of their citations from other dissertations. In summary, the new method now makes it possible for research funders, institutions and others to systematically evaluate the impact of dissertations, although additional Google Scholar queries for other online repositories are needed to ensure comprehensive coverage. 相似文献
20.
[目的/意义]通过分析某个学科领域中Altmetrics指标的特征,为该领域文献影响力评价提供更加科学合理的指标体系。[方法/过程]定位于图书情报领域,选取Scopus、Altmetric.com进行文献被引频次及Altmetrics指标值的采集,对数据进行统计分析、聚类分析和内容分析。[结果/结论]在众多Altmetrics指标中,Mendeley和Twitter更适合于对图书情报领域文献的影响力做出评价;Mendeley和Twitter中文献的使用群体、文献主题、内容和期刊分布都存在明显的差异性;Twitter适合对文献的社会影响力做出判断,Mendeley更适用于文献的学术影响力评价;不同工具的流行程度存在地域差异,利用Altmetrics指标时应考虑该指标对文献影响力的评价是否存在地域缺失。 相似文献