comparison of free bibliographic managers

I am trying to compare all the free bibliographic tools out there. You can find the post here
I would like to get your feedback on this.

Thanks in advance.
  • In the interest of completeness, you may want to include Biblioexpress:
  • Thanks for your helpful comparison, udvranto. A couple of points:

    1) With the current version of Zotero you can already create unlimited notes on an item (not just one), and in the next version (beta 4, due shortly) you'll also be able to put annotations right onto a saved web document.

    2) If you look under the "gear" menu for export you'll see that Zotero can export in a variety of other formats than just BibTeX and RIS, including RDF, MODS, and Refer.

    3) You can present information from Zotero in plain text, HTML, and RTF (your last column).
  • Since we are on this subject...

    How does Zotero compare/contrast with Scribe3?

    I started using Scribe, then ran across Zotero since both are products of CHnM.

    Should I stick with Scribe or take the plunge with Zotero. Right now I'm kinda playing Zotero, but I'd like to know from the authors how they compare.

    Why two Biblio products from the same source?

  • The software comparison sounded like a good idea for a WP page:
    It is currently biased towards the programs which I most frequently use, but hopefully collaborative editing will expand the list of packages which are compared.
  • edited March 9, 2007
    arggem-- I'm the developer of Scribe. In the long run you should plan to work in Zotero--eventually Zotero will have most of the features that Scribe currently has.

    The first version of Scribe was created a long time ago, before Firefox and its extensions were around, and at this point we're just providing bug fixes and some support--no significant new features will be added. The next version of Scribe will have full export to Zotero--it will be available at the same time as the next release of Zotero. If you have any records in Scribe you can move them to Zotero then.
  • Thanks! Thats what I wanted to know!!
  • Noksagt, the comparison of reference management software on Wikipedia is a great resource.

    A few comments: the import table lists the following databases as unsupported by Zotero: Copac, CSA, ISI, Medline, Ovid, PubMed, SciFinder. I believe at least some of these, however, should be listed as supported. Because database aggregators sometimes nest inside one another, it can be a little tricky to determine which ones work with Zotero. Here's my best assessment: we fully support Ovid, CSA, and PubMed, as stated in our documentation; partially support ISI, and will soon support Copac (March 28). Although we don't seem to support Medline directly, it's available via PubMed, Ovid, and Ebsco, all of which are Zotero-compatible.
  • Thanks for the clarification. The import table is meant to list file formats which users can manually import, as opposed to sites that can be imported. If some of the site translators use the raw formats, perhaps they should be changed to "partial" & it should be made clear that Zotero can import that file type from a particular set of sites.

    This differs from the "database connectivity" section, which is where the individual "site translators" belong.

    Copac is a good example of this. They have their own tagged file format, but Zotero doesn't understand it. However, the site is adding COinS, which Zotero can read. If Copac was added to the database connectivity section, there would be a "yes" in it for Zotero. However, there would still be a "no" for the import file format.

    Feel free to amend the wiki, though--that's why I put it there, rather than on my own site.
  • Thanks for clarifying the distinction between the import and database connectivity tables, Noksagt. I'll add some explanatory language to that effect in the Wikipedia entry in the next few days, since others might make the same assumptions I did.
  • I actually added short descriptions to those particular tables last night, but feel free to add some to other tables and/or to clarify the descriptions I added.

    Thanks again!
  • Great article on WP noksagt. I hope to contribute there in future.
Sign In or Register to comment.