RIS export does not include reviewed author for journal articles

When exporting a book review in a journal to RIS format the reviewed author is not included in the exported file. I found line 224 in RIS.js that says: //NOT HANDLED: reviewedAuthor, scriptwriter, contributor, guest. Is there a technical reason for this or is it because it is not clear what field it is supposed to be exported to in RIS? Would it be possible to implement it? I would rather have it exported for example as translator (preferably with a note) and then be able to move it to the correct field than not having it included in the export.
  • There aren't corresponding fields for these creator types in RIS. What exactly is your use case here? Why are you exporting to RIS?
  • It is for exporting to another reference manager (NotaBene/Ibidem) where the only common import/export format is RIS. To be able to export a reference that is as complete as possible would hence be preferable.
  • I have seen that Citavi exports the reviewedAuthor to A3 when exporting to RIS. Would that be a solution that could be added in Zotero as well by adding the following as a new line 251: "creators/reviewedAuthor":["journalArticle"], in RIS.js? This would be the only way that a review can be differentiated from other journal articles when exporting to RIS as far as I can tell.
  • The RIS format spec denotes specific roles for A3 (series editor, illustrator, editor, producer, international author, higher court, publisher, adviser) and A4 (funding agency, translator, performers, producer, department/division, volume editor, counsel, sponsor), depending on the resource type. Over-riding these generally would not seem wise.

    The spec does not define what A2/A3/A4 are for the journal article type. But I'm not sure it makes sense to follow Citavi's lead here; they do a few things that aren't documented in the RIS standard & that makes other products have to work-around these unexpected variances.
  • That is fine, but could you then suggest a way to export book reviews in journals that include the reviewed author in the export file? So far that is not possible, and that is what I am looking for.
  • You're aware that you can just customize the RIS.js file for your own purposes? It's not compiled, so you can just change it locally to change the export behavior of Zotero.

    I don't think there's a great solution here for RIS in Zotero; like noksagt, I'd feel uneasy about just inventing behavior.

    Zotero would export the reviewed author in several different formats (Zotero RDF and Bibliontology RDF at a minimum), so it's not like it can't be exported. It just can't be exported in RIS.
  • Yes, I know that I can edit the file myself. I have tested it and know that it works, (that is why I suggested a specific line for the added text). However, I have also got the impression that RIS is the closest one comes to a universal format for import/export across different reference managers these days so not being able to rely on RIS for this is unfortunate, that is, if it is not meant to be a solution only for me. At least I have come to know the shortcomings of RIS as an export format from Zotero.
  • RIS is certainly not that. It is highly idiosyncratic across reference managers (e.g., Endnote behaves differently than Web of Science), and its limited field availability and re-use of fields across item types in unexpected and inconsistent ways is a major problem for interoperability.
  • edited May 14, 2020
    I have understood that RIS is not a good import/export format and I knew that there are many adaptations of it in use. It would have been helpful if someone just said that the Zotero RIS export format will not allow deviations from the list found here: https://github.com/aurimasv/translators/wiki/RIS-Tag-Map which seems to be the authoritative standard for Zotero.
    Besides, a standard might be established by authority, custom or consent without necessarily being the best choice. MS Word as a "standard" text processor is just one example. I did not by "standard" mean that it was decided by any authority. On this site https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_reference_management_software bibtex and RIS seem to be the most available formats in the programs listed there. In that way RIS can be understood as a "standard" format despite all its deficiencies, and that was how I meant it to be understood. I am sorry if I did not expreess myself better. In conclusion, I withdraw my wish for adjustments to the RIS export format.
Sign In or Register to comment.