Hi,
Connotea and CiteUlike are two of the most important online reference management services.
They allow scientists to make their own bibliographies and to share them with other people on the web.
Connotea is opensource and it's released by the Nature Publishing Group, but CiteULike is not related to any publishing group, but closed software (as it's written in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connotea, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CiteULike).
The problem is that these two tools have different databases, and different functionalities which I don't know of, so it seems that I have to choose to use only one of them and leave the other.
I don't understand which are the differences between them... and I couldn't find many articles or review, or comparison about this topic.
So, which is the best one? There is not any way to merge the entries from two different accounts?
I would like to create a short bibliography about a work I'm going to do about splicing in yeast, so do you know if one of them is more frequented by researcher on these fields?
Thanks!! ;)
so, Connotea or CiteULike?
Fri, 2007-03-30 23:20 — dalloliogm
User login
Navigation
New forum topics
Recommended Reading
Who's online
There are currently 0 users and 10 guests online.
Syndicate
Powered By
Still waiting Connotea to fix Buggotea
On the whole I prefer Connotea, but there's not much in it, and I think both these tools have a long way to go before they become mainstream. I'm still waiting for Nature Publishing Group to fix the annoying Buggotea bug, which to my mind is a fairly fundamental flaw for a "social software" application.
del.icio.us
I've started my library with connotea and I've been lazy to fully test citeULike. Of course I like the automatic recognition of the articles from pubmed or from the doi, but despite many requests to improve connotea, the site has not much evolved since its was launched. Moreover I find connotea really poor for knowledge discovery when compared to the network option from del.icio.us. For example,, using my 'network page' at http://del.icio.us/network/lindenb I can quickly read all the new bookmarks from my network.
Pierre
social features
I will do my bit to defend the social features of these sites :). I mostly use Connotea and Citeulike to get recommendations from other people. I get the RSS feeds for topics that interest me (in both sites) and it works quite well for that. In return I tag papers, mostly hoping that it will be of use to someone else as well.
Sometimes Connotea has been helpful to find papers that I remember having read but not from were, although Google usually gets me there. The other thing that I like about these sites is the possibility of doing meta analysis, like testing if tagged papers are more likely highly cited for example. In summary, so far I cannot say that either Connotea or CiteUlike are useful as a reference manager but I find them useful as a recommendation engine. Between the two I prefer Connotea because it is more open but I think CiteUlike has a larger user base.
Zotero
Yeah, use Zotero. You don't get the social features, but I imagine that won't last for long.
wow... zotero!
Thanks!
Thank to you and to everybody for the replies.
I'm using zotero and I find it very cool... it has the managing interface which Connotea and CiteULike miss, and some options are very nice, for example the possibility of adding multiple entries from a pubmed/hubmed search (note: I think it's somewhat slow when bookmarking articles on hubmed, it's a problem of my computer?), and it has a good way to manage pdf files in the local computer.
Anyway, it's bad that these three services don't collaborate with each other... they are like complementary, because connotea and citeulike don't have a good firefox extension, and this zotero misses the social-bookmarking features.
---
WHO AM I?
Your name is , seeker.
http://genome.imim.es/~giovanni
Both awful
I spent 2-3 days last week investigating Connotea and CiteUlike. In my view, neither are up to the job. Connotea is tremendously fussy about what it will import, CiteUlike not fussy enough. Both lack simple, basic features (a count of how many references I have, anyone?) Connotea choked on one of my references due to - a hyphen in the author name. Neither deal well with bibtex. Export features are very limited. They're slow. I mean, I could go on. It's a shame because I like the idea of collaborative, social networks for references but the implementation in both cases really puts me off. I've read a lot about these sites over the years and having tried them out, I can't see what the fuss is about.
Do yourself a favour and get a good, working local setup for your references. I recommend refbase. And if you like the idea of one-click reference screen scraping to a database, give Zotero a try.
Connotea will be undergoing development
Hi,
I wanted to update people on the situation with Connotea. I just joined the NPG team to take care of Connotea. Our main in-house developer Ben Lund left a while back, and mainly because of that there has not been much improvement with the service. I've been reading though the bug reports and feature requests
(boy are there a lot of feature requests), and I'm getting my head around the code at the moment, so I hope that going on into 2007 I'll be able to resolve some of the bigger problems that are present with the service.
If any of you want to pop a feature request directly at me then I'm available at i.mulvany@nature.com.
Cheers,
- Ian
feature requests for connotea
1. Actually RSS Feeds for private groups don't work, please fix this.
2. Collaborate with CiteULike, Zotero and the other online reference managers, please.
3. Fix the bugs with the URIs described in this post
---
WHO AM I?
Your name is , seeker.
http://genome.imim.es/~giovanni
2. Collaborate with
Apparently this is in the works. As Neil says, this is the holy grail of reference management, I look forward to it.
Good news
That's excellent news Ian. I'm sure many people here will be sending many more requests your way before long. Are you sure that you want your email address here? ;)