Sharing a bibliographic database in
research teams on web interface
A study of collaborative reference
management tools
Colette Cadiou, Sylvie Sarah-Blin
colette.cadiou@cemagref.fr, docmtd@teledetection.fr
EURASLIC , OMER May 2011, Lyon, France
Plan
•
•
•
•
2
Context
Reference management practices and needs
Study of different tools
Conclusion and further opportunities
Context of our study
Research and scientific information in Cemagref
► Cemagref : the French governmental environmental
science and technology institute, 800 scientists,
doctorate and post-doctorate students in 9 centres
► Researchers work
► in a team or laboratory,
► in research national or international project teams
► in specialized fields from different disciplines : biology, hydrology, forestry,
economics and management, electronics, modelling…
3
Context of our study
A professional network for scientific information
► A network of 25 librarians or information specialists to answer
scientific information needs to researchers :
►information watching and searching,
► bibliometrics,
► electronic and paper resources management,
► web communication
► OAI publications
► Support to prospective or strategy
► training and support : information retrieval, reference software
management
4
How researchers manage their documents with software
PDF documents on
internal server
URL Links or web
page capture
Word processor integration
Styles for citations/journals

Scientific publication
Word, OpenOffice, LateX
Results of database
searching (Scopus,
WOS, IEEE XPlore,
Google Scholar…)
5
Researcher’s
reference database
Other tool
How researchers would like to share their bibliography
User demand
• Common keywords or
fields, name of contributor,
comments add, alerts…
Web
access
common
library
•Storage in secure
computing environment
•Free or open source
system
RIS or BibteX +files
import/export
PDF documents on
server
Word processor integration
Styles for citations/journals

Scientific publication
Researchers’ biblio databases
with their PDF, web captures…
6
Word, OpenOffice, LateX
Sharing bibliography : current or past practices in Cemagref
Sharing EndNote files in one common EndNote Database

 secure storage, customization, import quality
 no web access, limited to EndNote users, writing rights
limited, no group management, success depends on one
coordinator
Wikindx (free open source, http://wikindx.sourceforge.net/)

 secure storage on internal server
 no success with researchers (coordination, ergonomy),
no longer developed
7
New demands in 2010 for collaboration
Group profile
Content
Duration
(private group
>10 p.)
8
No limit
Main
requirements
A team or
laboratory
All their
bibliography, Ref +
PDF
Secure storage
space,
customization
A scientific
project team
A selected
3 or 4 years
bibliography : Ref +
PDF + web capture
PDF + other file
(review)
A group of
librarians and
researchers
Result of
Depending on task
bibliographic
: short time, or no
searching : Ref +
limit or 3-5 years
PDF + web capture
Search engine,
product publishing
Methodology of our study
Elaboration of a
list of criteria
Evolution of the
context
(Literature, blogs forums…)
List of software to test
Tests of different tools
Conclusion and prospects
9
Results of our tests in 2010
Tool
http://myendnoteweb.com

Summary
Imports/exports for EndNote – EndNote web
users
Collective use
limited
No PDF or full-text management : only URL
 PDF /web capture transfer with reference during
synchronization
http://www.zotero.org
2008
http://www.mendeley.com
(2008, lastfm, Mendeley)
10
 Synchronization is slow and deceiving, the test
on a WebDav server in MTD Montpellier was not
conclusive
No possibility to transfer a collection of one’s
library, Limits of import/export
Limit of 500 Mo free of charge on Zotero server
 Ergonomy :
PDF and web capture easily downlable, with metadata,
possibility to annotate documents, create groups
Search engine powerful
Social network philosophy : to find other references in
groups ( serendipity)
Private and public collections
 Online storage space limited : 500 Mo, 10 persons to
share 1 collection, 10 shared collections…You have to
pay each month to get more !
No duplicates finding
Sharing
possibilities but
with limits,
maybe the
future version
will enable to
transfer one
subcollection
Very ergonomic
tool for personal
use and sharing
libraries (
desktop and
web)
but limits to out
of charge use
Results of our tests in 2010
Tool
http://www.citeulike.org
R. Cameron ,Oversity ltd (
UK), Springer, 2004
http://wizfolio.com/, 2008,
Wizpatent
Nature publishing,
11 http://www.connotea.org
(2004)

 Many features, export/import ok , 2 PDF + images
to each reference, support many sources of papers
Public and private groups : serendipity
no web capture, external server, advertisements
on left column, customization limited
Summary
Solid application,
no storage limit
but interface
could be
improved
/Mendeley,
external server, a
few
advertisements ,
customization
limited
 Ergonomy
Summary of results, Duplicates finding, Possibilities
of sorting references
Import of format RIS only, Advertisements on the
screen, Limit of adding 50 references each month
Free version limited : : 25 to 50 $year
Ergonomic tool
but free version
limited
RSS feeds, ( contributor, group,tags…)
 Links sharing, not really PDF management
No PDF
management
Not easy to
learn interface
Other tools tested or examined
► Reference management software
Pybliographer, Qiqqa, Refbase, I’Librarian, Aigaion, Jumper
: don’t match with our criteria, pbs in tests
► Library Open source software (PMB, Koha): no imports,
not adapted
► CMS ( Content management systems ) : bibliography module
►ex Drupal : imports/exports RIS and BibteX ok, but requires
further developments for ergonomy
12
Conclusion
-
2 products offer the best possibilities but don’t achieve the ideal
solution
- Mendeley : Very ergonomic and easy tool for personal and web use ( desktop
and/or web), sharing documents with max 10 persons, annotating and searching
documents, social network facilities , Zotero
but economic problem if more than 10 persons, more than 500 Mo etc
- CiteULike :
Solid application, no storage limit but interface could be improved
/Mendeley, external server, a few advertisements , customization limited
13
14
15
Further opportunities
►
«
Cloud computing » = centrally-hosted website tools seem
inevitable : who will pay if required, how long will it be free ?
What Else ? new products are coming with new opportunities : to be
tested
► Colwiz, http://www.colwiz.com
( end of 2010) : not limited to papers : « research management, collaboration and productivity in
one place for free »)
► Evolution of current tools : Zotero, better synchronization , subcollection to export ?
► Will collaborative tools ( Alfresco, Nuxeo ) include reference management ?
► Social scientific networks ( researchgate ?)
► How to export several PDF documents and metadata
► Adaptation , impact on our activities (import/export quality, training and support,
database size, new literature searching tools?
► Cooperation between librarians/computing engineers to test and share our test
results and experience : professional associations or networks : how to organize it ?
16
Acknowledgements
•
Comparison of reference management software - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (2011)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_reference_management_software
•
Plateforme de gestion bibliographique - SciencesPo. Wiki
http://wiki.sciences-
po.fr/mediawiki/index.php/Plateforme_de_gestion_bibliographique (2011)
•
Reference Manager Overview | Gobbledygook http://blogs.plos.org/mfenner/reference-manager-overview/ and
Reference management meets Web 2.0 , Martin Fenner , Cellular Therapy and Transplantation, Vol. 2, No.
6, 2010 10.3205/ctt-2010-en-000087.01, http://cttjournal.com/index.php?id=582&uid=314&code=DNL&backPID=582&no_cache=1&rtekeep=1
•
Hull D, Pettifer SR, Kell DB (2008) Defrosting the Digital Library: Bibliographic Tools for
the Next Generation Web. PLoS Comput Biol 4(10): e1000204. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000204
http://www.ploscompbiol.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pcbi.1000204
•
Mead TL, Berryman DR (2010) Reference and PDF-manager software: complexities,
support and workflow
.
Med Ref Serv Q 2010 Oct; 29(4):388-93.
•
Norman, F. ( 2010) Trading knowledge: From Sci-Mate to Mendeley - a brief history of
reference managers http://blogs.nature.com/franknorman/2010/06/
•
Mémoriser/Favoris et signets - Wiki URFIST http://wikiurfist.unice.fr/wiki_urfist/index.php/M%C3%A9moriser/Favoris_et_signets
•
Lardy, JP. (2010) CiteUlike, Connotea, BibSonomy et 2Collab
http://urfist.univ-
lyon1.fr/1276867570613/0/fiche___document/&RH=1228138239015
•
Marois, A. ( 2010) Mendeley : gestion de références bibliographiques 2.0
http://www.slideshare.net/amarois/mendeley-gestion-de-rfrences-bibliographique-20
17