Fenner
Cellular Therapy and Transplantation (CTT), Vol. 2, No. 6
Please cite this article as follows: Fenner M. Reference Management meets Web 2.0. Cell Ther Transplant. 2010;2:e.000087.01. doi:10.3205/ctt-2010-en-000087.01
© The Author. This article is provided under the following license:
Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License
Submitted: 6 August 2010, accepted: 14 September 2010, published: 8 October 2010
pdf version
Contribute a comment
Reference Management meets Web 2.0
Martin Fenner, MD
Carl-Neuberg-Str. 1, Hannover Medical School, 30625 Hannover, Germany
Correspondence: Martin Fenner, Department of Hematology, Hemostaseology, Oncology and Stem Cell Transplantation, Hannover Medical School, Carl-Neuberg-Str. 1, 30625 Hannover, Germany. Phone +49 511 532-4077, Fax +49 511 532-8077, Email: fenner.martin@ mh-hannover.de
Keywords: |
AbstractReference management software has been used by researchers for more than 20 years to find, store, and organize references, and to write scholarly papers. Recently developed collaborative web-based tools have resulted in a number of interesting new features, and in a number of new reference managers. These developments are changing which reference managers we use, and how we use them. Keywords: reference management, Web 2.0, citation |
Introduction | Reference management software allows researchers to create a personal electronic collection of relevant scholarly publications, and to use this collection to write their own scholarly works. Some of the earliest programs (e.g. Endnote and BibTeX) have now been around for 25 years, and their core functions remain unchanged. The first big change came around 15 years ago when references were no longer typed in by hand, but rather retrieved from the Internet. Another important change started five years ago in the context of what is typically called Web 2.0. Reference managers no longer were used as software on a single desktop computer. They now more often than not are web-based applications (with or without synchronization to a desktop version), and this allows easy sharing of references between several users, computers and/or other web applications. This trend has led to a number of new reference managers, both commercial and freely available. |
Searching
| All reference managers can import references from bibliographic databases, either by directly searching these databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar, etc.), and/or via so-called bookmarklets. Bookmarklets are specialized bookmarks for web browsers that retrieve references from web pages, e.g., the result of a PubMed search. Both strategies have their advantages, but for most users there is no real difference. Interesting references are also showing up in other places besides bibliographic databases. Most commonly this is a journal table of contents received via email or RSS reader, but it can also be a blog post or even a Twitter message. In order to retrieve this reference information, users usually first have to follow a link to a bibliographic database or journal web page. |
Storing | Reference managers are databases that store references. In the life sciences a reference is typically a journal article, and sometimes a conference abstract, book chapter, or web page. But reference managers can also handle a long list of other references. Among the 48 reference types supported in the latest version of Endnote (Endnote X4), some of the lesser known are online database, audiovisual material, grant, blog, and research dataset. This wider definition of a reference looks not unlike the bookmarks we store with our web browser. Bookmarks can be stored in specialized websites (e.g., delicious), and several of these so-called social bookmarking sites also handle scientific references (CiteULike being the most popular). |
Writing | Reference managers are a big time saver in manuscript writing. They help in inserting citations into the text and automatically create a bibliography in the desired citation style. Although many reference managers now come with more than 1000 different citation styles, only a few of them (e.g., Endnote or Refworks) allow the user to edit them — an important feature for some users. Not all reference managers have a word processor plugin, and if they do they often only support Microsoft Word and maybe OpenOffice. The built-in reference management features of the latest version of Microsoft Word (Word 2007 or Word 2008 for Macintosh) are very rudimentary and not recommended. |
LinksConnotea |
|
Conclusions | Reference management software is currently undergoing a lot of exciting changes, and now is a good time to test some of the programs mentioned in this article. Several of the newer reference managers are free to use, so cost shouldn’t be a reason not to start using such a tool. CiteULike and other web-based tools can be used right away without installing any software; downloading and installing one of the free tools (e.g. Zotero or Mendeley) also takes less than an hour. Every reference manager has strengths and weaknesses; the comparison chart can help with finding the right tool to get started. It is also a good idea to start with a reference manager that your colleagues use. Not only can they help you with questions, but you also want to use the same reference manager when writing a manuscript together. |
Acknowledgements | I declare no conflict of interest. |
References | 1. Hull D. et al. Defrosting the digital library: bibliographic tools for the next generation web. PLoS Comput Biol. 2008;4(10):pp.e1000204 |
© The Authors. This article is provided under the following license:
Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License
Please cite this article as follows: Fenner M. Reference Management meets Web 2.0. Cell Ther Transplant. 2010;2:e.000087.01. doi:10.3205/ctt-2010-en-000087.01
<-- Previous article Contents Next article -->
Top