排序方式： 共有10条查询结果，搜索用时 15 毫秒
1
1.
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
2.
《Journal of Web Librarianship》2013,7(3):111-122
Abstract Two open source extensions to the Firefox browser, LibX and Zotero, can improve the research process for library staff and users. Once configured and installed, LibX provides Firefox users with an additional browser toolbar and right-click functionality that can search a library's catalog, OpenURL resolver or federated search engine, as well as other Web sites. LibX also includes an autolinking feature, which embeds searchable links within other Web sites such as Google, Amazon, or Yahoo. Zotero merges the best features of other citation management programs with those of popular Web 2.0 services. Zotero users can store full citation information and sort, tag, annotate, and search these citations from within the Firefox browser. Zotero can also “scrape” citations from certain Web sites, allowing users to selectively save citations into their research collection. Zotero can generate complete bibliographies in MLA, APA, and Chicago styles. The abilities to remotely store, synchronize, and share Zotero collections are under development with a planned release date in fall 2007. 相似文献
3.
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
4.
5.
Scholarly communication is often thought of as the preservation of knowledge. In fact, it also influences the creation, transformation, and dissemination of knowledge. The new norms of scholarly communication are multiple authorships, inter-institutional and international collaboration, and use of social media. The evolving norms for the librarians and consortial groups are supporting research data management, aiding discovery of collaborators, and dissemination and preservation of results, especially in digital formats. Librarians are viewed as experts in scholarly communication on many campuses but their leadership is not always recognized. 相似文献
6.
《Journal of Web Librarianship》2013,7(1):41-59
Abstract Many libraries use RSS to syndicate information about their collections to users. A survey of 65 academic libraries revealed their most common use for RSS is to disseminate information about library holdings, such as lists of new acquisitions. Even though typical RSS feeds are ill suited to the task of carrying rich bibliographic metadata, great potential exists for developing applications that can exploit metadata exposed to Web services via RSS. Using the MODS metadata format, entire catalog records can be seamlessly embedded in RSS 2.0 feeds. Existing tools, such as Library of Congress Java toolkits and XSLT stylesheets, can facilitate this process, while a new XSLT stylesheet may be used to create the RSS feeds complete with MODS records. As an example of the added functionality these MODS/RSS feeds can offer, records from a MODS-enriched RSS feed can be ingested into a non-RSS application such as Zotero. As more emerging library technologies use Web services architectures to handle data objects, the ability to syndicate catalog records will become more critical to providing innovative library Web services. 相似文献
7.
8.
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
9.
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
10.
Yingting Zhang 《Medical reference services quarterly》2013,32(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
1