Sharing a bibliographic database in research teams on
Sharing a bibliographic database in research teams on web interface A study of collaborative reference management tools Colette Cadiou, Sylvie Sarah-Blin colette. cadiou@cemagref. fr, docmtd@teledetection. fr EURASLIC , OMER May 2011, Lyon, France
Plan • • 2 Context Reference management practices and needs Study of different tools Conclusion and further opportunities
Context of our study Research and scientific information in Cemagref ► Cemagref : the French governmental environmental science and technology institute, 800 scientists, doctorate and post-doctorate students in 9 centres ► Researchers work ► in a team or laboratory, ► in research national or international project teams ► in specialized fields from different disciplines : biology, hydrology, forestry, economics and management, electronics, modelling… 3
Context of our study A professional network for scientific information ► A network of 25 librarians or information specialists to answer scientific information needs to researchers : ►information watching and searching, ► bibliometrics, ► electronic and paper resources management, ► web communication ► OAI publications ► Support to prospective or strategy ► training and support : information retrieval, reference software management 4
How researchers manage their documents with software PDF documents on internal server URL Links or web page capture Word processor integration Styles for citations/journals Scientific publication Word, Open. Office, Late. X Results of database searching (Scopus, WOS, IEEE XPlore, Google Scholar…) 5 Researcher’s reference database Other tool
How researchers would like to share their bibliography User demand • Common keywords or fields, name of contributor, comments add, alerts… Web access common library • Storage in secure computing environment • Free or open source system RIS or Bibte. X +files import/export PDF documents on server Word processor integration Styles for citations/journals Scientific publication Researchers’ biblio databases with their PDF, web captures… 6 Word, Open. Office, Late. X
Sharing bibliography : current or past practices in Cemagref Sharing End. Note files in one common End. Note Database secure storage, customization, import quality no web access, limited to End. Note users, writing rights limited, no group management, success depends on one coordinator Wikindx (free open source, http: //wikindx. sourceforge. net/) secure storage on internal server no success with researchers (coordination, ergonomy), no longer developed 7
New demands in 2010 for collaboration Group profile Content Duration (private group >10 p. ) 8 No limit Main requirements A team or laboratory All their bibliography, Ref + PDF Secure storage space, customization A scientific project team A selected 3 or 4 years bibliography : Ref + PDF + web capture PDF + other file (review) A group of librarians and researchers Result of Depending on task bibliographic : short time, or no searching : Ref + limit or 3 -5 years PDF + web capture Search engine, product publishing
Methodology of our study Elaboration of a list of criteria Evolution of the context (Literature, blogs forums…) List of software to test Tests of different tools Conclusion and prospects 9
Results of our tests in 2010 Tool http: //myendnoteweb. com Summary Imports/exports for End. Note – End. Note web users Collective use limited No PDF or full-text management : only URL PDF /web capture transfer with reference during synchronization http: //www. zotero. org 2008 http: //www. mendeley. com (2008, lastfm, Mendeley) 10 Synchronization is slow and deceiving, the test on a Web. Dav server in MTD Montpellier was not conclusive No possibility to transfer a collection of one’s library, Limits of import/export Limit of 500 Mo free of charge on Zotero server Ergonomy : PDF and web capture easily downlable, with metadata, possibility to annotate documents, create groups Search engine powerful Social network philosophy : to find other references in groups ( serendipity) Private and public collections Online storage space limited : 500 Mo, 10 persons to share 1 collection, 10 shared collections…You have to pay each month to get more ! No duplicates finding Sharing possibilities but with limits, maybe the future version will enable to transfer one subcollection Very ergonomic tool for personal use and sharing libraries ( desktop and web) but limits to out of charge use
Results of our tests in 2010 Tool http: //www. citeulike. org R. Cameron , Oversity ltd ( UK), Springer, 2004 http: //wizfolio. com/, 2008, Wizpatent Nature publishing, http: //www. connotea. org 11 (2004) Summary Many features, export/import ok , 2 PDF + images to each reference, support many sources of papers Public and private groups : serendipity Solid application, no storage limit but interface could be no web capture, external server, advertisements on improved left column, customization limited /Mendeley, external server, a few advertisements , customization limited Ergonomy Summary of results, Duplicates finding, Possibilities of sorting references Import of format RIS only, Advertisements on the screen, Limit of adding 50 references each month Free version limited : : 25 to 50 $year Ergonomic tool but free version limited RSS feeds, ( contributor, group, tags…) Links sharing, not really PDF management Not easy to learn interface
Other tools tested or examined ► Reference management software Pybliographer, Qiqqa, Refbase, I’Librarian, Aigaion, Jumper : don’t match with our criteria, pbs in tests ► Library Open source software (PMB, Koha): no imports, not adapted ► CMS ( Content management systems ) : bibliography module ►ex Drupal : imports/exports RIS and Bibte. X ok, but requires further developments for ergonomy 12
Conclusion - 2 products offer the best possibilities but don’t achieve the ideal solution - Mendeley : Very ergonomic and easy tool for personal and web use ( desktop and/or web), sharing documents with max 10 persons, annotating and searching documents, social network facilities , Zotero but economic problem if more than 10 persons, more than 500 Mo etc - Cite. ULike : Solid application, no storage limit but interface could be improved /Mendeley, external server, a few advertisements , customization limited 13
14
15
Further opportunities ► « Cloud computing » = centrally-hosted website tools seem inevitable : who will pay if required, how long will it be free ? What Else ? new products are coming with new opportunities : to be tested ► Colwiz, http: //www. colwiz. com ( end of 2010) : not limited to papers : « research management, collaboration and productivity in one place for free » ) ► Evolution of current tools : Zotero, better synchronization , subcollection to export ? ► Will collaborative tools ( Alfresco, Nuxeo ) include reference management ? ► Social scientific networks ( researchgate ? ) ► How to export several PDF documents and metadata ► Adaptation , impact on our activities (import/export quality, training and support, database size, new literature searching tools? ► Cooperation between librarians/computing engineers to test and share our test results and experience : professional associations or networks : how to organize it ? 16
Acknowledgements • Comparison of reference management software - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (2011) • Plateforme de gestion bibliographique - Sciences. Po. Wiki http: //en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Comparison_of_reference_management_software http: //wiki. sciences- po. fr/mediawiki/index. php/Plateforme_de_gestion_bibliographique (2011) • Reference Manager Overview | Gobbledygook http: //blogs. plos. org/mfenner/reference-manager-overview/ and Reference management meets Web 2. 0 , Martin Fenner, Cellular Therapy and Transplantation, Vol. 2, No. 6, 2010 10. 3205/ctt-2010 -en-000087. 01, http: //cttjournal. com/index. php? id=582&uid=314&code=DNL&back. PID=582&no_cache=1&rtekeep=1 • Hull D, Pettifer SR, Kell DB (2008) Defrosting the Digital Library: Bibliographic Tools for the Next Generation Web. PLo. S Comput Biol 4(10): e 1000204. doi: 10. 1371/journal. pcbi. 1000204 http: //www. ploscompbiol. org/article/info%3 Adoi%2 F 10. 1371%2 Fjournal. pcbi. 1000204 • Mead TL, Berryman DR (2010) Reference and PDF-manager software: complexities, support and workflow . Med Ref Serv Q 2010 Oct; 29(4): 388 -93. • Norman, F. ( 2010) Trading knowledge: From Sci-Mate to Mendeley - a brief history of reference managers http: //blogs. nature. com/franknorman/2010/06/ • Mémoriser/Favoris et signets - Wiki URFIST http: //wiki- • Lardy, JP. (2010) Cite. Ulike, Connotea, Bib. Sonomy et 2 Collab http: //urfist. univ- • Marois, A. ( 2010) Mendeley : gestion de références bibliographiques 2. 0 urfist. unice. fr/wiki_urfist/index. php/M%C 3%A 9 moriser/Favoris_et_signets lyon 1. fr/1276867570613/0/fiche___document/&RH=1228138239015 http: //www. slideshare. net/amarois/mendeley-gestion-de-rfrences-bibliographique-20 17
- Slides: 17