Reference Management Software: a Comparative Analysis of Four Products.

Authors

  • Ron Gilmour
  • Laura Cobus-Kuo

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.29173/istl1521

Abstract

Reference management (RM) software is widely used by researchers in the health and natural sciences. Librarians are often called upon to provide support for these products. The present study compares four prominent RMs: CiteULike, RefWorks, Mendeley, and Zotero, in terms of features offered and the accuracy of the bibliographies that they generate. To test importing and data management features, fourteen references from seven bibliographic databases were imported into each RM, using automated features whenever possible. To test citation accuracy, bibliographies of these references were generated in five different styles. The authors found that RefWorks generated the most accurate citations. The other RMs offered contrasting strengths: CiteULike in simplicity and social networking, Zotero in ease of automated importing, and Mendeley in PDF management. Ultimately, the choice of an RM should reflect the user's needs and work habits.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

American Psychological Association. 2009. DOI and URL flowchart [Internet]. [Cited 2011 June 18]. Available from http://blog.apastyle.org/files/doi-and-url-flowchart-8.pdf

Barsky, E. 2010. Mendeley. Issues in Science & Technology Librarianship 62 [Internet]. [Cited 2011 Apr 18]. Available from http://www.istl.org/10-summer/electronic.html

Cordón-García, J.A., Martín-Rodero, H., and Alonso-Arévalo, J. 2009. Gestores de referencias de última generación: análisis comparativo de RefWorks, EndNote Web y Zotero. El Profesional de la Información, 18(4), 445-454.

Crotty, D. 2009. Why article tagging doesn't work [Internet]. [Cited 2011 Apr 18]. Available from http://cshbenchmarks.wordpress.com/2009/02/23/why-article-tagging-doesnt-work/

Duong, K. 2010. Rolling out Zotero across campus as a part of a science librarian's outreach efforts. Science & Technology Libraries, 29(4), 315-324.

Fenner, M. 2008. Interview with Victor Henning from Mendeley [Internet]. [Cited 2011 Apr 18]. Available from {https://web.archive.org/web/20101008232947/http://blogs.nature.com/mfenner/2008/09/05/interview-with-victor-henning-from-mendeley}

Hensley, M.K. 2011. Citation management software: features and futures. Reference & User Services Quarterly, 50(3), 204-208.

Hull, D., Pettifer, S.R., and Kell, D.B. 2008. Defrosting the digital library: bibliographic tools for the next generation web. PLoS Computational Biology, 4(10) [Internet]. [Cited 2011 Apr 18]. Available from http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000204

Mead, T.L. and Berryman, D.R. 2010. Reference and PDF-manager software: complexities, support and workflow. Medical Reference Services Quarterly, 29(4), 388-393.

Norman, F. 2010. From Sci-Mate to Mendeley: a brief history of reference managers. [Internet]. [Cited 2011 Apr 18]. Available from {https://web.archive.org/web/20100612180635/http://blogs.nature.com/franknorman/2010/06/08/this-is-an-edited-version}

O'Reilly, T. 2005. What Is Web 2.0. [Internet]. [Cited 2011 Apr 18]. Available from http://oreilly.com/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html

Puckett, J. 2010. Superpower your browser with LibX and Zotero. College & Research Libraries News, 71(2), 70-97.

Warling, B. 1992. EndNote plus: enhanced reference database and bibliography maker. Journal of Chemical Information and Computer Sciences, 32(6), 755-756.

Downloads

Published

2011-09-01

How to Cite

Gilmour, R., & Cobus-Kuo, L. (2011). Reference Management Software: a Comparative Analysis of Four Products. Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship, (66). https://doi.org/10.29173/istl1521

Issue

Section

Refereed Articles
Share |