Unicode in Procite & EndNote

Search email archive for  

Unicode in Procite & EndNote
Author: Nguyen2    Posted: Mon, 3 Oct 2005 13:30:17 -0400
Dear List:

I have been wanting to use Unicode fonts in ProCite for non-English
languages (especially sorting names in, say, Southeast Asia references)
to the point of attempting to write my own Access database. Alas, I've
given up hope that Procite is supported. I saw a commercial flyer of
EndNote with Unicode support and was thinking of give it a try. If some
one on the list happened to have a chance to try this Unicode support, I
would love to hear the experience.

Re: Unicode in Procite & EndNote
Author: Copeland, Laurel A    Posted: Mon, 3 Oct 2005 11:13:20 -0700
I have not evaluated *any* of the sites below in terms of your question, but
here goes. One site's owner was at your institution, I believe (#4).

(1) I found a potentially relevant message in my stash of ProCite listserv
email. The original message had no subject; that is why I supplied one in
square brackets. So, it is really about Macs, but the writer mentions
-----Original Message-----
From: PROCITE The Personal Bibliographic Software Discussion List
On Behalf Of Gijs Kessler
Sent: Sunday, January 09, 2005 7:44 AM
To: /> Subject: [bib programs for Mac]

Forced to migrate from the discontinued ProCite for the Macintosh to
some other bibliographic database application I just spent several days
testing three possible alternatives and I thought that my experiences
could be of interest to subscribers of this list.

These observations regard only the Macintosh platform and should not be
taken as any indication whatsoever regarding the usability of the
mentioned applications under Windows. The testing was done on an iBook
G3 600 Mhz, MacOS 10.3.7, 256 MB RAM.

Testing involved demo-versions of three applications: Endnote 8
(http://www.endnote.com), Bookends 7.7.5 (http://www.sonnysoftware.com)
and Sente 2.0.2 (http://www.thirdstreetsoftware.com/). In addition to
these three applications there are some, mainly open-source or free
bibliographic database management applications belonging to the BibTeX
family, which is a bit a world apart, plus some entirely web-based
platform-independent solutions, which I have not considered because
they do not allow one to work with one's references without a permanent

Sente is mainly oriented toward bibliographic management with heavy
reliance on the web and web-sources. If this is your main thing, then
it might be worthwhile having a proper look at this application. For
this review Sente has not been extensively tested because it lacks a
Cite While You Write feature, which was one of my requirements for a
new application.

Remain Endnote and Bookends, similar in concept both to each other and
to the now defunct ProCite, although with important differences.
Endnote is the most universal of the two, offering a wide variety of
reference types and separate fields for data entry as well as
ready-made Word-Endnote templates for preparing manuscripts in
accordance with the guidelines of many publishers and journals.
Furthermore Endnote is Unicode compatible, whereas Bookends is not yet
(version 8 which will support Unicode is currently being beta-tested
and will probably be available in a not too distant future). Endnote's
extra features come at a cost which is almost three times as high as
that of Bookends though. Also Endnote lacks two features which Bookends
has: a "group" function similar to the one in ProCite, which allows one
to mark sets of records within a database as groups for later
reference, export or targeted searches, and Cite While You Write
integration with two other word processors apart from Word: Mellel, and
Nisus Writer (Express). Both can scan documents generated by other Word
processors for citations, though. Endnote 8 is MacOS X only, Bookends
is available in a Classic version and an OS X version. Endnote comes
with a larger assortment of import filters and output styles than
Bookends, but both are mainly oriented toward the sciences, whereas
scholars working in the humanities will have two write their own
filters and styles under both.

Of course many factors bear upon the choice which people will make for
the one or the other application, and everybody should test both
alternatives before making this choice, but as a rule of thumb I would
give the following advice:

- If the level of bibliographic detail you need does not exceed the
basic data necessary for generating citations and bibliographies
accompanying books and articles (author, editor, book title, chapter
title, journal name, article title, publisher, place of publication,
year of publication, page numbers, volume and issue number) plus
reference information like keywords, notes, URL, abstract and call
number - choose Bookends. Apart from being considerably cheaper, it
does its job flawlessly and offers the same versatility as Endnote in
formatting in-text citations and bibliographies in word-processing
documents, including the possibility to automatically generate three
different citation forms (first citation, subsequent citation and full
bibliography entry), which is a prerequisite for scholars in the

- If you need a greater level of bibliographic detail or, so far (but
this is to change, see above), you need Unicode capabilities, choose
Endnote. Endnote allows for an infinitely greater variety in data entry
and reference type customisation than both the current and the future
version of Bookends. All the more because of its great potential it is
a great pity though that Endnote is marred by a great many bugs,
sluggishness, and an insufficiently thoroughly edited user
documentation. Bugs that appeared during testing included one
"Application unexpectedly Quit"-error, several "Generic service error
messages", frequent failures to save changes when editing output
styles, necessitating creating incrementally numbered versions of the
same output style through the "Save As" backdoor to reach the final
result, and recurrent problems in the redrawing and resizing of windows
when editing styles, necessitating complicated manoeuvres to see what
one is actually typing. Endnote's sluggishness could be related to its
very demanding system requirements of a G4 processor or higher
(although the application also runs on a G3-processor as testified by
this reviewer's experience), unparallelled on the Mac-platform and
outstripping even those of the latest version of the operating system.
The User documentation has obviously been rather hastily rewritten from
the Windows version up to the point where it refers the user to locate
files through the Windows explorer. Once these issues will be addressed
by the developer Endnote will be a fine programme, though.

Hope this has been of some use,

Gijs Kessler /> International Institute of Social History
Amsterdam, The Netherlands

(2) Another email provided a comparison of bibliographic packages:
From: Vassallo, Benita Weber
Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2003 2:31 PM
To: /> Subject: Re: Comparison of Biblioscape, Citation, and Procite

Although it is a bit dated (Sept. 2002) the comparison done by Francesco
Dell'Orso offers a good evaluation of several bibliographic software
I don't know if there is a more recent comparison out there.
Benita Weber Vassallo
Inter-American Development Bank

(3) Yet another version of that site:
From: R Gozzoli
Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2003 6:37 AM
To: /> Subject: Re: Help Deciding
...For a comparison of the different products, please see:
It is the English distributor, but perhaps you can find the same chart in
some other website.
-- Roberto Gozzoli, The University of Birmingham, UK

(4) Another site with comparisons:
-----Original Message-----
From: mark tyler day /> Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2003 1:48 PM
To: /> Subject: Issues and alternatives Re: Help Deciding
Dear Fellow Procite users,
...For a comprehensive current list of programs with links, see: Don Cribbs'
Personal Bibliography Software:

Good luck!
Laurel Copeland
San Antonio VA

Previous by date: Re: new to listserv and procite, Eric Andelson
Next by date: Re: Unicode in Procite & EndNote,  Copeland, Laurel A
Previous thread: Source parsing, Esat Sevilay
Next thread: Unicode in Procite & EndNote, Nguyen2

For the time being we are unable to offer the following product ranges although we are currently working hard to increase the number of products we can offer in the future. Please contact us to talk about alternative products that we may be able to offer you.