Of course each person has to have a paid copy so that is not useful for a graduate seminar. I do not do anything like the collaboration that you do but I know that Sente does allow you to share libraries. If, as they say, sometimes you need many sharp tools to get a job done well, still I wish I didn’t need quite so many sharp research tools to close the digital research circle.Īs noted on Twitter, I do think that heaven will have quite an interesting community…Chesterton alone will be worth it.
Docear add image pdf#
But, it does not hold a candle to the pdf managing capacities of Sente or Mendeley. I really do like Zotero, and especially now that they have a version that stands alone outside of Firefox. Thus, I am forced to continue to use Zotero for the gathering and the citing phases of the process. Further, the bookmarklet they use to gather document information from the web is … weak: it does not identify bibliographic information on the website and import it directly into Mendeley as Zotero does so beautifully.
Docear add image manual#
They still have not fixed an issue with html code coming into footnotes when using the Chicago Manual of Style Full Note with Bibliography style. Mendeley falters, however, at the gathering and the citing phases. (Above is a picture of me teaching with Mendeley, referring to a document a student had annotated.) Mendeley’s capacities for collaboration enriched our collective research and our seminar discussions throughout the semester. My graduate students and I shared a collection, and thus were able to refer to the shared highlights, annotations and notes of our various texts together in class. Mendeley’s capacity to facilitate collaborative research led me to adopt it extensively in my graduate seminar on Aristotle’s De Anima over the spring semester. It even allows you, for example, to embed your profile into your blog posts:Ĭhristopher Long is a member of Philosophy on Mendeley. When it comes to organizing pdfs in a social research context, Mendeley is the best. In the meantime, I solved a duplicating problem I was having in Mendeley when I stopped having Mendeley sync to a folder in Dropbox and allowed it to sync to a local drive on my various machines. (OK, that came off as a bit too as too cynical – dial the cynicism back a notch or two, but you get the point.) Here is link to a post about how I work with a research assistant to do collaborative research in philosophy – it includes an embedded Prezi as a bonus.ĭespite Sente’s excellence at gathering, its limited social capacities, its outmoded ways of integrating with the word processor (using in-text citation tags and the need to initiate scans of the document – as opposed to using Applescripts), its clunky search features, and its brutal lethargy on the iPad app with certain kinds of pdf files led me back to the Mendeley/Zotero model. Soon I realized, however, that although it does have a rich and responsive support forum, Sente is missing what both Zotero and Mendeley offer: a robust capacity to share and collaborate with a research community.Īlthough I am in a humanities discipline, collaboration is becoming an increasingly important part of my academic research. When I experienced the way Sente integrated with the Penn State Library, felt the ease by which I could pull pdf files directly from our huge collection of databases and have Sente parse them quickly according to their bibliographic information and place them at my disposal on my desktop and in a beautiful iPad app, I thought I had died and gone to research heaven. The great strength of Sente is its capacity to gather, which itself is a vital part of the research process. After a bit of fun with Sente, after two weeks I am back to my combined Mendeley/ Zotero model. Thinking that I might finally close the digital research circle by taking the advice of and I decided to give Sente a try.
Instead, I want to focus again on what should be the very heart of that ecosystem: the reference manager. I will not here rehearse my entire research ecosystem which involves Dropbox, Evernote, Scrivener and even Word, although I invite you to read through and comment on my posts on the issue of digital research. More than two years later, I am still close, but now what felt tantalizing has tilted toward the torturous. For a brief history of my reflections on digital scholarly research, I invite you to take a ride on the Long Road way-back machine circa April 15, 2010, when I first wrote about the elusive quest to close the digital research circle.įunny how, in that initial post, I thought I was “tantalizingly close” to closing what I called the digital research circle: the ability to gather, curate, annotate, synthesize and cite scholarship without paper using a seamless digital process. As spring rolls into summer, it is time for another appraisal of my digital research ecosystem.
0 kommentar(er)
