Reference managers are essential tools to read and write scholarly papers. In the last few years we have seen both a number of new reference managers (most of them web-based), but also a trend for the established reference managers to gain social networking features. More choice is great, but it also creates confusion about the right tool to use. I have talked about reference managers before, but in this slideshow I look at the features that I find important.
And there are at least two features that I like, but haven't really seen implemented in a reference manager:
In the last slide I wonder whether there is a) one perfect reference manager, b) one perfect reference manager for my particular needs, or c) I will always need more than one reference manager and have to move references back and forth between them. Currently I'm at c), using mostly Papers, Endnote and Connotea. But Mendeley, Zotero, Refworks and Endnote are moving in a direction where they try to cover all requirements.
Please keep it simple
Doing scientific research is becoming increasingly complex, both in terms of the tools and technologies used, and in the collaboration across disciplines and locations that is increasingly commonplace. While the way we write up and publish research is of course also very different from 25 years ago, ...
Is Schema.org about a technical standard or about something else?
At the beginning of the month Google, Bing and Yahoo announced schema.org, a new initiative for structured markup on the web. Richard MacManus responded with a critical piece at ReadWriteWeb (Is Schema.org really a Google Land Grab?), ...
Support open source software as a GitHub sponsor
Two years ago GitHub introduced the ability to sponsor an open source contributor – person or organization. They handle (and pay for) the payment logistics for a one-time or regular contribution. A blog post from June 2019 describes the thinking of the ...