Wrong medadata for Science papers

zqtxlc
Hi all!,

When I try to "Retrieve Metadata for PDF" for Science papers (only tried a dozen of papers in the field of physics), it always gives a wrong medadata.
Say, http://science.sciencemag.org/content/344/6184/608
These Science papers have a commen feature different from other journals, i.e., the first page of a new article is connected to the last page of last article.
And Zotero regards the last article as the medadata of current paper by mistake.

I would appreciate if anyone can help me solve this problem, thanks!.
  • adamsmith
    I'm not sure we have a good solution here. Zotero picks up the DOI at the top of the page which belongs to the previous article. Generally getting DOIs from the top of articles is the most reliable way to get high-quality metadata, so we do want to keep the mechanism intact.

    So only thing to recommend would be to import from the page using the Save to Zotero icon rather than using retrieve metadata.
  • zqtxlc
    Thank you very much.
    I hope we can come out with a good idea to solve this, it works fine in Mendeley (same Science papers).

    One more problem, using "Retrieve Metadata for PDF", I don't know the reason, but I cannot get the abstract in the medadata for all papers regardless of published journals.
    Any suggestion? Thank you.
  • adamsmith
    we get the data from google scholar and CrossRef. Neither have abstracts. I can only repeat that Retrieve Metadata should only be used if you absolutely have to. Importing from article pages is pretty much always better, often significantly so.
  • lfriedla
    I have a similar problem. Want to download abstracts and have them placed in the abstract field, but it sounds as if that can't be done because they don't exist from sources like Google Scholar. is that correct? Thanks.
  • DWL-SDCA
    Google Scholar is a great index to articles but is a rather poor source of metadata and _not_ a source of abstracts. It is always better to follow the GS link to the publisher's website and there good metadata and (if not an editorial or letter) the abstract is available.

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.