While creating items, site translator does not get Abstract

Gurdas_Sandhu

Lately, I have noticed that the Abstract is not pulled in when I create items in Zotero. I am using Zotero Firefox 4.0.28.7.

Two examples where this can be seen:
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.5b02497
http://papers.sae.org/2014-01-2628/

adamsmith

those are site-specific. Looking at fixing them. If you have examples from other sites, post them here, please.

Gurdas_Sandhu

Thanks, adamsmith. I think there are a couple other examples. I'll post here when I find/remember them.

adamsmith

I have ACS fixed. SAE may take a little, run into a little glitch there; once that's fixed it's going to work much better, though.

Gurdas_Sandhu

ACS fix is working. Thanks.

adamsmith

SAE is fixed, too.

Gurdas_Sandhu

SAE fixed working. Actually, and just like you said it will, it is working better than ever before. I noticed that it is now able to distinguish when a SAE paper is printed in a SAE journal versus Technical Paper Series. Thanks!

This might be specific to me, but I dislike specifying a SAE Paper as "Report" type. I am aware there is no good answer to this issue. For example, this paper:
http://papers.sae.org/2015-01-1606/

I dislike the Report type because of how it shows up in the bibliography when I cite one. So, I set these as "Journal Article" with volume number same as the SAE paper number, and no issue number. I like how that gets cited.

The only issue then remains, each time I save one of these SAE papers, I have to reset it to journal article and copy-paste a couple fields. Any ideas/suggestions to improve my workflow?

adamsmith

not really, no, unless you want to adjust the citation style?
Conceptually I really do think those technical papers are reports.

Gurdas_Sandhu

I think they are closest to Conference Paper. I don't think they are anywhere near a Report because these papers are independently peer-reviewed and reports are never. Also, most, if not all, of these papers are presented at an SAE conference.

My recommendation is that the default type should be Conference Paper, not Report.

adamsmith

many reports and similar publications are peer-reviewed. E.g. the majority of working papers (which we all treat as reports) have some version of peer review.
Conference paper as an item type is designed for papers published in edited proceedings. You wouldn't be happy with how this comes out in most citatino styles.

Gurdas_Sandhu

Reports may be peer-reviewed but that is a professional courtesy controlled by the report authors. It is not mandatory to address peer-review comments. And, reviewers do not get to decide if the report will published.

Yes, you are correct why I do not set these to Conference Paper type. But I still believe these are essentially Conference Papers.

DWL-SDCA

Are not SAE technical papers formatted as reports when cited in the reference lists of other SAE publications?

Gurdas_Sandhu

I've never seen them treated as reports. SAE calls them Technical Papers. I'd assume if they wanted these treated as reports, they would have called them Technical Reports. All recent papers have this at the end:

"The Engineering Meetings Board has approved this paper for publication. It has successfully completed SAE’s peer review process under the supervision of the session organizer. The process requires a minimum of three (3) reviews by industry experts."

To the best of my knowledge, all of them undergo the review process as submissions to a conference or SAE Congress. These events do not have a separate proceedings document, so the papers end up in the Technical Paper Series.
https://www.sae.org/congress/2015/papers.htm

Gurdas_Sandhu

These links might help clarify some more:
http://papers.sae.org/
http://www.saedigitallibrary.org/content/technical-papers/

On the first link page, it says:
"Technical Paper Collections are assembled from technical papers authored for an SAE session, are directly related to a specific topic or technology, and are available online anytime through My Library."

adamsmith

sure, I understand that. But for metadata purposes and for citation purposes, these are still reports (which is something you seem to have a much narrower view of as the Zotero data model).
And SAE agrees with that. From the page header of a typical technical paper entry:
<meta name="citation_technical_report_number" content="660458"/>
...
<meta name="citation_technical_report_institution" content="SAE Technical Paper"/>

DWL-SDCA

@gurdas

You may have misunderstood my comment. I wasn't referring to whether or not the item was refereed. I was stating that, when a SAE Technical Paper is cited in the reference list of another SAE publication, the format/style of the item matches that of any other _report_ but I should point out that sometimes the paper's title is preceded by "SAE Technical Paper: "

My opinion is that the important thing for a bibliographic manager is to format references in a suitable style to meet the requirements demanded by the recipient of the manuscript. I believe that the reference style is independent of the degree of rigor of an item's peer review history. I believe that the question is "Given the guidelines of the manuscript target, how can the bibliographic entry in the reference list 1) give proper credit to the prior intellectual product, and 2) enable readers to find the source document?"

Gurdas_Sandhu

adamsmith, okay. Can't argue with that :)

DWL-SDCA, I understood your comment correctly but probably my answer is falling short. The format may match a Report type, but that isn't because authors consider them a report. The format match is mostly because the downloaded paper does not specify which conference it was presented at. Previously, the papers used to state the conference on the cover page, but I haven't seen that in recent years.

Anyway, it really does not matter to me whether Zotero treats them as Report or Conference Paper. I still have to reset the type to Journal Article to match my formatting needs. I had done some tests two years ago and picked Journal Article. I'll redo them again and maybe I can live with Report type.

Gurdas_Sandhu

I tested the formatting for the top 5 styles I use and the Report type comes out really well. The only issue remaining is that DOI is not included. I think a future version of Zotero will bring DOI to reports, right?

Also, adamsmith, I noticed the updated translator is adding DOI to the extra field, which is great. The DOI entry for this paper:
http://papers.sae.org/2015-01-2852/

is "DOI: 10.4271/2015-01-2852" in the second line of the Extra field; the first line is used by a plugin that adds citation count. Should the DOI entry be formatted to:
{:DOI: 10.4271/2015-01-2852}

adamsmith

no, Dan says he prefers the DOI: label over the curly brackets workaround and we'll work to get that working with citation styles as soon as possible.

Gurdas_Sandhu

Okay, that's even better.

Here's another example where abstract is not saved:
http://trrjournalonline.trb.org/doi/10.3141/2503-12

DWL-SDCA

The abstract isn't available from your URL but it is available at:

http://trrjournalonline.trb.org/doi/abs/10.3141/2503-12

If I am at the table of contents for that issue
http://trrjournalonline.trb.org/toc/trr/2503

and select the item in the list; the version of the article page I get is the one with the abstract. There the Zotero icon is for a journal article.

However, I tried the DOI route and I am taken to the URL without the abstract, identical to the one @gurdas lists above. From that page the Zotero icon is a folder.

I don't understand why a publisher connects the doi to a version without the abstract but also provides an abstract-containing version.

In both cases the RIS metadata download doesn't contain the abstract. However, using the Zotero import from the link at the top of this post, the abstract is captured.

This is why I marvel at Zotero as a bibliographic tool.

adamsmith

yes, the problem is that we don't have the atypon translator detect on pages with doi/10....
we expect some description (like /abs/, /full/ or the like) after /doi/.
The current import from that page is just via DOI from CrossRef. (and yes, we scrape the abstract from the page).

adamsmith

OK, http://trrjournalonline.trb.org/doi/10.3141/2503-12 will now work

Gurdas_Sandhu

@adamsmith: TRR link working great. Thanks.

Another example where abstract is not coming in:
http://digitallibrary.sae.org.prox.lib.ncsu.edu/content/2009-24-0148

Above link is through my library login so I can get the PDF. If you have access to SAE Digital Library, you can replicate the issue. I have saved this page as .mht, so let me know if you need that.

Just FYI, the same paper at this page works fine:
http://papers.sae.org/2009-24-0148/

adamsmith

yeah, if you could post the .mht somewhere, that'd be helpful.

Gurdas_Sandhu

Here's the .mht:
http://1drv.ms/1Llq0do

adamsmith

unfortunately that's a completely different site structure. Someone with full access would have to develop and test that. (I'd guess it's currently just using the DOI and getting the data from CrossRef).

Gurdas_Sandhu

Ok, thanks for looking in to this. Your guess seems correct, based on the icon. Just FYI, I can get you full access for a couple days, if that helps.

adamsmith

generally yes, but I'm swamped now. I'll be in touch when I got a bit of time to check it out.

Gurdas_Sandhu

Okay, sounds great. Thanks.

Gurdas_Sandhu

The SAE Technical Paper translator seems to be having issues. My observations using two examples:

(1)
http://papers.sae.org/2009-24-0148/
Description: SAE Technical Paper, not published in an SAE journal

- From default icon (shown as Report type): Item saved as Web Page, Title (Yes), Authors (No), Abstract (Yes)

- With 'Using DOI' option: Item saved as Conference Paper, Title (Yes), Authors (Yes), Abstract (No).


(2)
http://papers.sae.org/2014-01-2628/
Description: SAE Technical Paper, also published in an SAE journal

- From default icon (shown as Journal type): Item saved as Web Page, Title (Yes), Authors (No), Abstract (Yes)

- With 'Using DOI' option: Item saved as Journal Article, Title (Yes), Authors (Yes), Abstract (No).

Could someone please fix this?