Oh, the old "it's not a bug, it's a feature!" drivel. "People don't have that many references". Please. Ain't nobody got time for that. My master's thesis had a hundred I think.

I told you L&L had no interest. Turns out there a vocal group of Stokholm Syndrome Scrivener users too.

I damn near missed CL because I had minor errors in my bibliography (OK, so it was a close shave anyway). I will never understand people who do this by hand. The BBT quality report is a direct result of that close shave. The manuscript authors however *are* interested.

@gagarine

Yes, and most of their active users on their forum seem "happy to handle that manually"

I posted what I thought was a civil note to the thread you link above, only to be met also with ridicule by one of the local denizens. A few L&L users with time on their hands seem to have taken it upon themselves to protect the project against unwelcome ideas. Seems to be a lost cause. Here's hoping that someone one day builds a platform with the same functionality that serves the academic community.

Go team.

It's early days, but there's a refreshing difference between the reaction by that CTO ("yes, definitely interested!! want to DM some more detail?") and the responses on the L&L forums.

The L&L forums are of course not representative of all Scrivener users or even of the devs (even if some of the users there seem to think they are), but the most fiery opponents remind me of myself when stress peels away the thin protective layer and my autism asserts itself. "this is different! different is bad! IMO it's hard and unnecessary anyhow. what are we talking about again?!".

Except ManuscriptsApp has its own citation/bibliography management and the philosophy behind it (bibliography travels with the document) doesn't really mesh well with what we have in mind. Ah well.

At least it will be open source, built on electron. It should be doable to write plugins to do what we want. I'm not a great fan of the bib-inside-doc idea. Paperpile does the same and I found it miserable to work with.

The idea behind it is (reasonably enough) that it makes it easier to collaborate. No need to set up Zotero groups in addition to sharing permissions on your document. The downside is that I found it a pain in Paperpile to make sure corrections I made to my central ref db ended up in my documents. Usually it meant remove and re-add. Ain't nobody got time for that.

In any case, if it's electron based and allows plugins, merging in picker + pandoc workflow and eschewing it's built-in ref mgr should be possible in principle, depending on how much we'd have to fight off the internal ref mgr. It will take a while before anything emerges at all, nothing is ready for download quite yet.

Sort of, but it's a little more sophisticated than that - it does update from a central repo of sorts, but I'm not sure on the update mechanism.

The main problem I have with such editor + ref mgr systems is that they are geared towards their own editor, and consequently anything else (such as bibtex) is either ill supported or not supported. It also means that other amenities that can be added to the bare function of managing refs (like importing from websites, everything that zotfile does, etc) falls to the wayside .

Meh.

I'd say it's more a narrow view of what a reference manager can do besides just putting references in folders. For that they do get in return a model where collaboration is likely smoother. Different priorities, but given that I'm a heavy biblatex user, not set up for me. Until I get a plugin going of course.

It's a strange editor though, or I must be overlooking something substantial. I've downloaded it and the only way I can do citations is by creating a footnote and using that in-text as a citation. That seems odd, and I can't find any way to do APA. Or to import BibTeX.

Anyhow, I doubt I'm the target demographic. I like git for versioning, and I don't actually mind writing latex code (even though I wouldn't half mind a GUI editor that could edit it for the occasional quick fix). I've looked into the XML it produces... yikes. Not meant to be edited by hand.

I'll have to wait for a new appimage to drop (and for a non-numbered style to drop. I *hate* numbered citation styles). npm run app gave me an error and quit.