Changes to fields and item types for Zotero 5.1

1101112131416»
  • I found the next issue:

    Sometimes, a journal article are online published on a specific date, let's say 12/2018, and later is published the journal issue to which that article belongs, let's say on 2020. Then, at least for the specific paper I got this, when I added the item to Zotero through its doi, the assigned Date was that of the journal publication.

    Is there some field (possibly to add under Extra) which would suit the online publication date of the journal article?
  • Is there a citation-style standard that requires _both_ an ePub ahead-of-print date and the final true date of publication?
  • edited April 23, 2021
    The CSL 1.0.2 field for that is available-date (if distinct from the date of record)
  • edited May 4, 2021
    Not sure if this has been mentioned over the 10-odd years of this thread, but here goes:

    I'm wondering if the Call Number field will be made available for all item types in the new release. It is currently not present in several (eg web page, podcast, etc).

    I ask because I use the CN field to track items in my ref library, with such entries as F (filing cabinet), L(eLectronic), S (shelf), and so on. This is also true for the types for which it is not present, because I may have, for example, a downloaded copy of the podcast audio stored in my /References folder as an mp3, say, or a copy of the web page which has been printed to a PDF and stored, etc.

    This is not as simple as just doing an entry in the Extra field, since I want the info to be visible in the main display window along with the other fields such as Item Type, Citekey, Author, Date, etc etc. As I see it, this info would not be pulled out of Extra and shown there.

    So, how simple would it be to make Call Number available for all item types?
  • > So, how simple would it be to make Call Number available for all item types?

    +1. That would be very helpful for (nearly) the same reasons jvoros gave.
  • edited 25 days ago
    User comment here, from sociology, mixed-methods, lot of press article from rss feed in my workflow.

    - Why so much CSL complexity ? "just" enable custom items from 1 to 9 (or even more if posible) so everybody can edit item according to its needs: audio, video, scenic material, and more...No debate about what criteria should be a priori be used for your item type. There is another service that does this, it appears in an excel table where you can decide to display the column associated to the tag, before printing or saving the custom list. And Devs will love this one (like the "just" above) : it looks simple ;) The usecase I am talking from has to do with the construction of anotaded bibliographies, at the beginning of a project for example. See more in the coming point below.
    - +1 for the annotated bibliography case: editing a little line of comment using the "extra" tag is a tweak that works but is limited; Personally, I would like to edit tags like these: objective of the paper, main hypothesis, type of date use, reflexive comment regarding my current investigation, addressed questions to my colleagues. All this in few words. It makes you condense your mind and avoid the anotation obesity and "I could retrieve it later" danger. It matches the collective dimension of research process, and enable iterations of comments between colleagues without passing through hegemonic cloud services. And constitute a perfect document format to prepare a literature review article, even to maintain a continuous literature review process in your field...
    - I think this comment supports @Lauragayle and @WarthogARJ in this thread.
    - Also add a gender tag, lot of violence in this but as a limited approximation it could help balance your biblio, give insightful stats...
    - In that line of thought, add age, race, also "class", all of it editable with the care of the investigator's words
    - Maybe discography metadatas needs specific features? I don't know.
    - Import meta-data from Itunes, clementine, etc. would be so nice right? Or would it mean mixing everything? I do think it would be nice...

    Last, here is a zotero blogpost about how to make note and anote a bibliography, it is in french but with pictures : https://zotero.hypotheses.org/3556. The tweak about how to make a comment using the extra item is well illustrated, it requires by the way the use of 3rd party plugin to edit the production of the form (right-click menu on item). It then shows how to add more comments so a colleague can read and respond, but using this complex CSL things, other services, and the end result is a bit meh. and that is exactly the point that could be to my view improved. It joins previous comments mentioning it is hard to search in a anotated biblio document. There might be a sweet spot for 5.1 improvements here I hope :) or for 5.2...

    Highlights:
    - enable field customisation for each item of your biblio
    - import/export datas from discography services
    - reflect what a comented/anotated bibliography is and how it could add value in research

    Many many thanks!
  • Given that there is now discussion about Zotero 6.0 (and this thread is about a decade old, with the discussion of 5.1 being about six years old) - will 5.1 simply be skipped and the changes rolled into 6.0?
  • 5.1 and 6.0 refer to the same thing, yes, it's just a question on how the Zotero team decides the semantic versioning. Given the addition of the PDF reader, I think they'll go with 6.0, whereas "just" the field changes would probably have been 5.1
  • What type is most appropriate for a preprint in Zotero?
  • I use Report, with the preprint archive and number given in the Report Number field. Once it is formally published (article, book chapter, etc), I cut that identifier out of that field, change the Item Type to the formally published type, and paste the identifier into the Archive field, preserving the info. If it is never formally published, the record remains in a form that distinguishes it in bib styles.

    This workaround will probably become moot once the newer item types are implemented.
  • I suggest Report or Journal Article, but most importantly, put 'Type: article' at the top of Extra. That will get cited correctly as a preprint for styles that support it and will be migrated to a Preprint item when that type is added.
Sign In or Register to comment.