PscyINFO on ProQuest and making/saving selections

When trying to select multiple articles from a search, with the intention of saving those selections to Zotero, PsycINFO (from the ProQuest interface) returns an error message and the selections are not made. This seems to only happen when Zotero is running, and only after repeated searches during the same session.

Here’s what’s happening:

1. From PsycINFO’s Advanced Search, I enter some keywords. For illustration, let's say I enter "attachment style" AND "trust"

2. Before entering the command to search, I select "peer review," "scholarly journals," and "Language: English"

3. These criteria return 79 results. I proceed to look through the four pages of results, and "check" the checkbox beside those articles I am interested in reviewing or saving

4. PsycINFO knows the number of items I have selected - for example, if I’ve selected 8 articles, it will list "8 Selected Items" on a link that’s given at the top of the results list

5. When I click that link - "8 Selected Items" - I expect PsycINFO to return just those articles I've "checked" or selected, and exclude the remaining 71 results

6. However, I get the following error message: "We seem to have encountered a problem" with the technical detail report of "The application encountered an unexpected exception: Render queue error in SetupRender[SelectedItemsUX]: org.apache.tapestry5.ioc.internal.util.TapestryException"

7. I can, however, save my selections on a page-by-page basis, but this is rather cumbersome, especially for searches that return multiple pages of results. It would be faster to make all the selections, exclude the dross, and then save to Zotero in one batch.

Again, this seems to happen only after repeated searches during the same session in ProQuest. Making selections and saving to Zotero works fine only the first search.
  • someone with access to PsycInfo on Proquest will need to confirm, but I believe ProQuest starts displaying captchas if you're making to many rapid requests. Nothing much we can (or should, really--except for perhaps a better error) be doing about that.

This is an old discussion that has not been active in a long time. Before commenting here, you should strongly consider starting a new discussion instead. If you think the content of this discussion is still relevant, you can link to it from your new discussion.

Sign In or Register to comment.