Any updates on this for 2023? I understand that it's non-trivial, but this is a feature Mendeley has had for years, and it's an annoying one to be missing for individuals migrating to Zotero.
Mendeley has had a (very) flawed version of this, but the metadata it retrieves is very often wrong. The problem of incorrect metadata even extends to Elsevier/ ScienceDirect journals. It has been speculated that Mendeley gathers its metadata in part from other users with no verification of accuracy.
Zotero developers realize that the need is for accurate metadata and not any metadata.Read my and others' comments earlier on this thread and of the other discussions of this issue.
If you submit a manuscript with false metadata for your citations it is sufficient cause for the MS to be outright rejected. Each of the 5 journals for which I serve as a peer reviewer have had this policy for many years -- one or (if there are many references) two citations to non-existent sources are not fatal. However, there better not be a pattern such as bad metadata for recent year articles. I have served as a reviewer of grant proposals for 3 U.S. government agencies and my reviewer instructions specifically call attention to reference accuracy: a reversed page, issue, or volume number (32 instead of 23) when all other information is correct is grounds for points off the score but false references mean that the application will be rejected! I'm a "certified" pedant so this is fine by me; those demands for great attention to detail are not popular but the standard is real. Often, a reviewer might be an author of one of the papers you cite in error. Remember that reviewers are selected to match the topic of the manuscript. How would you feel if your work was cited incorrectly (or worse, cited to support something different from your findings).
Give the developers time to get this right.It is often said that no data is better than bad data. Here, no metadata is clearly better than incorrect metadata.
Upgrade Storage
Zotero developers realize that the need is for accurate metadata and not any metadata.Read my and others' comments earlier on this thread and of the other discussions of this issue.
If you submit a manuscript with false metadata for your citations it is sufficient cause for the MS to be outright rejected. Each of the 5 journals for which I serve as a peer reviewer have had this policy for many years -- one or (if there are many references) two citations to non-existent sources are not fatal. However, there better not be a pattern such as bad metadata for recent year articles. I have served as a reviewer of grant proposals for 3 U.S. government agencies and my reviewer instructions specifically call attention to reference accuracy: a reversed page, issue, or volume number (32 instead of 23) when all other information is correct is grounds for points off the score but false references mean that the application will be rejected! I'm a "certified" pedant so this is fine by me; those demands for great attention to detail are not popular but the standard is real. Often, a reviewer might be an author of one of the papers you cite in error. Remember that reviewers are selected to match the topic of the manuscript. How would you feel if your work was cited incorrectly (or worse, cited to support something different from your findings).
Give the developers time to get this right.It is often said that no data is better than bad data. Here, no metadata is clearly better than incorrect metadata.