Zotero v. Mendeley v. EndNote

Yesterday, I wrote about the benefits to moving to an digital reference/citation manager.  For those of you that I convinced with that missive, I offer below, a comparison of the benefits and disadvantages of Zotero and Mendeley, and a brief mention from EndNote.   The following are points from this handy video that Portland State University made about Zotero and Mendely.

Zotero:

-open source, designed by academics at George Mason.

-free, with a knowledgeable community that provides support.

-emphasis on getting information/data out of Zotero into a format that is useful for user.

-use with Firefox, Safari, and Chrome (as a stand alone application)

-better for grabbing citations off the web (literally, you click a button and information from the page you’re on auto populates into Zotero libary).

-better for collaboration with multiple authors and groups (no limit on group size or authors)

-searches only abstract, citation, and notes for a particular quote.

-can work across multiple machines, allowing citations and pdfs to be linked on a server.  Limit: 300 mb of free space to sync, which is quite a lot, if you doing just citations.  If, however, you are syncing pdfs, it is easy to run through 100 mb relatively quickly.  Additional space can be purchased ($5 per month for 6 GB, unlimited for $10 per month).

-exporting content to other programs (EndNote, Word, etc) appears to be easier in Zotero.

Mendeley:

-proprietary/entreprenurial focusing on profitability, meaning that there is an emphasis on improving product.

-products and services they offer for free know might require payment in the future.

-superior for viewing and annotating pdfs within software (great for highlighting and adding notes).

-superior search functionality (searches not only citation, but the entire text of paper) for a specific quotes.

-not as great at pulling articles off of the web.

-limits to collaboration (3 groups for free, can’t have more 4 members per team).  Paid plans can be pricey ($49 per month).  However, group features are more robust than for Zotero.

-offers 1 GB for free, additional storage price is quite more expensive ($5 per month for 5GB, or unlimited for $15 per month).

-can be used alongside Zotero, such that anything that is added to Zotero can be added to Mendeley.  Exporting out is slightly more complicated, but still doable.

EndNote:

-LOL.

-No seriously, the main problem with EndNote is that you have to purchase a license to use it.  While it’s cool for the DePaul family (for which EndNote can be acquired for free) it can be problematic if you leave (unless you are okay with being forced to buy the license at your new institution).  But also, it gets down to whether or not you want to gamble hours and hours of work curating your citation collection on an institution deciding to continue subscribing to a particular product?

The software lives on a machine (who even has only one machine that they work from? What is that even?)  Office machine, personal machine, office machine, personal machine?  What is the point of having multiple machines if you can’t access your work on those machines?  Friend, you know that content needs to be on both machines and it needs to sync.

Advertisements

Adapt and Evolve, Like a BOSS.

Members of the Lincoln Park Accountability Group had an interesting conversation recently about citation/reference management.  The context is that a member had just finished a book project and was feeling the headache of dealing with citations for this monster project.  Unfortunately for him, he was still using the low-tech method of citation management, which, lets be honest, has caused many a heartache for countless academics.

The low-tech way of dealing with citation management comes in a variety of flavors, but the unifying theme of all of them, is that they require active, deliberate efforts from authors to collect and organize articles necessary for literature reviews.  Whether it is a stack of papers you’ve printed out, a folder of articles that lives in your Dropbox, or a running list of abstracted points (with citation information) you have that is approximately 75 single-spaced pages long in Word, the point is, that there is an easier way IF YOU ARE WILLING TO ADAPT AND EVOLVE.

The fact is, that if you are an academic researcher not using a citation management tool, you are literally, doing things the hard way.

My guess is that most manuscript projects probably start with a collection of papers.  These are the papers that form the core of your project.  You might have hard copies of them and maybe even digital copies somewhere.  You take the citation information, find the article, download the article, save the article, perhaps with a clever name, like Bishop-Royse (2013).  Good for you, for being organized.  But wait.  Now Bishop-Royse (2013) lives in your files, but it is no where helpful in order to help you write, either by generating its own citation entry in your document or by being where you need it when you need it.

Think about your process- and how you might be hanging onto hard copies of papers that you printed when you were a grad student.  Your fancy-schmancy graduate institution had access to ALL OF THE JOURNALS, but maybe DePaul doesn’t.  So, while you have the hard copy of an article, you can’t get the digital one in order to complete your reference collection.  Worse, you have to manually enter all of that information somewhere.  With something like Zotero, you can click a button and pull all the information about the citation into a file, even if you don’t have physical/digital access to that file at the time.

The low-tech way would be to sit down with a text editor open (aka Word) and manually type the information included in the citation.  Now, keep in mind that the journals/fields haven’t all gotten together to decide what are the best ways to present this information.  Ideally, you’d include the full names of all the authors, using no abbreviations, etc.  This way, if you decide to submit this monster to another journal than its originally intended journal, you don’t have to go all the way back to the original articles and rework them.  This sometimes happen if your first manuscript requires names in the bibiolography to be abbreviated, like J. Bishop-Royse.  Unless you happen to remember that my name is Jessica, you’re going to have to go back to the either the original article or look it up online to modify your reference list to go to another journal.  You are literally doing monkey work.  A well-trained monkey of average intelligence could do this task.  dinosaur

You, my friend, with a PhD, who has important contributions to make to the world, are doing tasks that a monkey could do.

And please, don’t even get me started on the different intricacies of where things go in the citation information and how that might be different across journals/fields.  Is it author, year, title or author, title, year?

With a citation manager, you go back into your library, tell it to export in the format you need, and let it take care of putting italics where they need to go.  For something like Zotero, there are literally, hundereds of styles that you can download and install, allowing you to export in practically any format you could want.

Here is a practice export that I did for American Sociological Association (ASA) format:

test2

With a couple of clicks, I was able to change the format to American Psychologist.

test3

There are a lot of citation managers out there (RefWorks, Zotero, Mendeley, EndNote, Papers).  They all have, to some degree of the same kinds of features.  Rodd Myers’ post on LinkedIn is fairly extensive.  There are also ways to adopt various tools that work nicely together.  So, its great to use something like Zotero or Mendeley, even better if you use in conjunction with Dropbox or Google Drive, so you can keep the actual articles in a place that the manager has access to.

For me, the question isn’t which citation manager should you use, it is rather, why aren’t you using one yet?