List Archives >  Procite List Archive >  Archive by date >  This Month By Date >  This Month By Topic

Help Deciding

Search email archive for  

Help Deciding
Author: Dale Miller    Posted: Mon, 8 Sep 2003 19:18:51 -0500
I had made the decision to buy bibliographic software, and after some research I decided that ProCite was a better purchase for me than Endnote or Reference Manager. Then I did some more research and found this list, whereupon I got very nervous about the future of ProCite. I don't want to get a product that won't be updated; even if it works well enough now, how long can it be before MS makes us upgrade to a new OS that isn't fully backwards-compatible. So unless someone has a knockdown argument for why I should still get ProCite, I am inclined to narrow my options to EndNote or Reference MAnager. I am having a hard time guessing which would be most useful for me, and could use help. I'm a humanities professor who wants to use this software for journal article/bookwriting. I will want to DL reference information from the Philosopher's Index on SilverPlatter (to which my library has online access), and from library catalogs. I want "cite as you write," and the ability to build bibliographies of the works I cite in individual essays. I am not sure how useful I would find the ability to have different sets of records, which I guess EndNote does not let you do (is that right?). Ease of use is certainly a factor; I am a little afraid I will find Reference Manager too complicated and never use it. I know I could DL trials, but realistically I am not going to put in the work of learning two or three different packages. Thanks.

Re: Help Deciding
Author: R Gozzoli    Posted: Tue, 9 Sep 2003 12:36:46 +0100
Dear Professor Miller, I come from Humanities (Egyptology), and I understand your feelings about learning two-three different packages. Procite does not have a spell checker, as well as perhaps is less intuitive than Endnote, and probably not flexible in putting OLE objects such as scanned pages. But it is still the only one, as far as I know, able to mix different sets of fonts in the same field. I am using transliteration and normal fonts in the same field, so Procite was still the best option. For a comparison of the different products, please see: http://www.adeptscience.co.uk/products/refman/endnote/chart.html It is the English distributor, but perhaps you can find the same chart in some other website. I know that Procite is quite old, the most recent version is dated 1999, ages ago in terms of software development. However, I still feel that with people with some particular needs Procite is still the best. Sincerely, Roberto Gozzoli The University of Birmingham, UK -----Original Message----- From: Dale Miller "mailto:drdaleemiller" Sent: Tue 09/09/2003 01:18 To: "PROCITE" Cc: Subject: Help Deciding I had made the decision to buy bibliographic software, and after some research I decided that ProCite was a better purchase for me than Endnote or Reference Manager. Then I did some more research and found this list, whereupon I got very nervous about the future of ProCite. I don't want to get a product that won't be updated; even if it works well enough now, how long can it be before MS makes us upgrade to a new OS that isn't fully backwards-compatible. Ss o unless someone has a knockdown argument for why I should still get ProCite, I am inclined to narrow my options to EndNote or Reference MAnager. I am having a hard time guessing which would be most useful for me, and could use help. I'm a humanities professor who wants to use this software for journal article/bookwriting. I will want to DL reference information from the Philosopher's Index on SilverPlatter (to which my library has online access), and from library catalogs. I want "cite as you write," and the ability to build bibliographies of the works I cite in individual essays. I am not sure how useful I would find the ability to have different sets of records, which I guess EndNote does not let you do (is that right?). Ease of use is certainly a factor; I am a little afraid I will find Reference Manager too complicated and never use it. I know I could DL trials, but realistically I am not going to put in the work of learning two or three different packages. Thanks.

Re: Help Deciding
Author: Copeland, Laurel    Posted: Tue, 9 Sep 2003 08:24:08 -0500
We are using ProCite in health services research. We want to search for and download references from Medline, cite while we write, and generate bibs in the style of various journals. Until ProCite lost its ability to search & download, we were delighted with it. Now we feel we must migrate to EndNote. We are generating dozens of articles per month, so the download function is extremely important. We actually have all 3 packages on site, as Ref Man is required for certain reports, but those of us who have used Ref Man seem to agree it is more difficult/annoying to use than ProCite. We are just learning EndNote, having bought a copy to try out before committing the entire office to it. We expect to choose to replace ProCite with EndNote. Luckily, the databases can be imported/exported among the 3 products. Because you mention downloading as an important feature of your bibliographic software, I think you are right to eliminate ProCite from your choices. If only ISI would upgrade ProCite! Laurel A Copeland, PhD VA Ann Arbor Health System (734) 769-7100 x6206 -----Original Message----- From: Dale Miller "mailto:drdaleemiller" Sent: Monday, September 08, 2003 8:19 PM To: "PROCITE" Subject: Help Deciding I had made the decision to buy bibliographic software, and after some research I decided that ProCite was a better purchase for me than Endnote or Reference Manager. Then I did some more research and found this list, whereupon I got very nervous about the future of ProCite. I don't want to get a product that won't be updated; even if it works well enough now, how long can it be before MS makes us upgrade to a new OS that isn't fully backwards-compatible. So unless someone has a knockdown argument for why I should still get ProCite, I am inclined to narrow my options to EndNote or Reference MAnager. I am having a hard time guessing which would be most useful for me, and could use help. I'm a humanities professor who wants to use this software for journal article/bookwriting. I will want to DL reference information from the Philosopher's Index on SilverPlatter (to which my library has online access), and from library catalogs. I want "cite as you write," and the ability to build bibliographies of the works I cite in individual essays. I am not sure how useful I would find the ability to have different sets of records, which I guess EndNote does not let you do (is that right?). Ease of use is certainly a factor; I am a little afraid I will find Reference Manager too complicated and never use it. I know I could DL trials, but realistically I am not going to put in the work of learning two or three different packages. Thanks.

Re: Help Deciding
Author: Steve Bousquin    Posted: Tue, 9 Sep 2003 17:23:58 -0400
I wonder if someone can update me on the issue at hand? Are you saying that ProCite will not be upgraded/supported in the future? Is the concern that it may not run on future MS operating systems? If so, I was about to request a number licenses for our group here and may want to reconsider. Thanks in advance for any advice! Steve Bousquin Dale Miller wrote: > I had made the decision to buy bibliographic software, and after some > research I decided that ProCite was a better purchase for me than Endnote > or Reference Manager. Then I did some more research and found this list, > whereupon I got very nervous about the future of ProCite. I don't want to > get a product that won't be updated; even if it works well enough now, how > long can it be before MS makes us upgrade to a new OS that isn't fully > backwards-compatible. So unless someone has a knockdown argument for why I > should still get ProCite, I am inclined to narrow my options to EndNote or > Reference MAnager. I am having a hard time guessing which would be most > useful for me, and could use help. I'm a humanities professor who wants to > use this software for journal article/bookwriting. I will want to DL > reference information from the Philosopher's Index on SilverPlatter (to > which my library has online access), and from library catalogs. I > want "cite as you write," and the ability to build bibliographies of the > works I cite in individual essays. I am not sure how useful I would find > the ability to have different sets of records, which I guess EndNote does > not let you do (is that right?). Ease of use is certainly a factor; I am a > little afraid I will find Reference Manager too complicated and never use > it. I know I could DL trials, but realistically I am not going to put in > the work of learning two or three different packages. Thanks.

Re: Help Deciding
Author: David Chasey    Posted: Tue, 9 Sep 2003 21:54:26 -0400
Steve Bousquin wrote" "I wonder if someone can update me on the issue at hand? Are you saying that ProCite will not be upgraded/supported in the future? Is the concern that it may not run on future MS operating systems? If so, I was about to request a number licenses for our group here and may want to reconsider." "Thanks in advance for any advice!" ==== Steve and all, I bought ProCite 5 for Windows with the understanding that one could do PubMed searches directly through the program. It worked splendidly for sometime. Beginning in July the PubMed search function no longer worked. And the program for my purposes now is totally useless. The site www.procite.com posted a message about this problem on I believe July 15. They posted a new message (currently on the site) dated August 12. It is now September 9. My personal expectation is that the problem will not get fixed. And because of this lengthening out of the problem I now view Procite as being as dead as the Latin language. I've deleted the program from my computer. And I absolutely refuse to upgrade to EndNote. David Chasey

Re: Help Deciding
Author: Dale Miller    Posted: Tue, 9 Sep 2003 21:20:02 -0500
Actually, this all may have become moot for me anyway. I didn't realize that at this point none of the programs support WordPerfect 11 (correct me if I am wrong). I was wrestling with the question of EndNote versus Reference Manager---ease of use versus power---when I realized that right now neither one would work for me.

Re: Help Deciding
Author: Gijs Kessler    Posted: Wed, 10 Sep 2003 11:41:38 +0400
In choosing whether to use ProCite or EndNote, or Reference Manager, I would pay attention to the following things: - what are their respective download abilities. Bear in mind, though, that ProCite (what about EndNote and Reference Manager) is able to import records in a variety of formats (tab-delimited texts, comma-delimited texts etc), which can be churned out by most database programs, and that you can edit import filters and configuration files to get the exact result you need. I have no experience with MedLine, which I understand gives problems with ProCite, so if you need that, check what the problem is all about - if you need at any time to work with references in any other language than English, check thoroughly and carefully what the capabilities of the three packages are in terms of handling other languages. I understand from one of the replies for example that EndNote is not able to use different sets of fonts in one field; this would make it a practically useless programme if you need to work with non-Roman languages, or with Symbols. Important as well is to check sorting capabilities if you intend to use non-English languages; again, if you cannot specify sorting orders, the programme is useless if you intend to work with non-English languages - If you intend to link to the programme while writing so as to insert automatically formatted references in footnotes, check which word processors are supported by the programme, and, referring back to my previous point, what the capabilities of these word processors are in terms of handling non-English languages, if you need to use them. I use ProCite, because that happened to be the programme I got first acquainted with, and it is not bad a programme at all, even if the Mac-version 4.03 , which I use, is not as good as earlier versions were, but on the whole it fulfills my needs. Its main drawbacks are, to my view: - the insufficient flexibility of the Cite While You Write Feature (it is not possible to define different in-text citation formats for first and subsequent citations - so, or Ibid, or full citation, or insert one of the two manually, but I understand that the latest version 5.0 offers this possibility) - the lack of ODBC support to link the programme to other database programmes - it's price, but this goes for Endnote as well, particularly if you consider how outdated the programme is, and how slow new development takes place at ISI (if they continue ProCite at all; here I have no idea) Hope this helps, if someone wants Mac-specific info, let me know, -- Gijs Kessler International Institute of Social History c/o Moscow Office 103821, Moscow ul. B. Dmitrovka 15, komn. 425 telephone/fax: +7-095-2873469 e-mail: "gke" URL: http://www.iisg.nl/research/gke.html

Re: Help Deciding
Author: Louis Gabaude    Posted: Wed, 10 Sep 2003 15:45:13 -0700
I would like to stress the point made by Gijs Kessler: ProCite allows to use several fonts in the same field. This is very practical and useful. I use it routinely with Thai. However, I have found 3 limitations: 1) some instability in the rendering when converted to word: for a reason I ignore but some wizard could find, the text following an extra or foreign font may erratically be converted to this extra font, even if you have retyped some text in the default font. Or perhaps the reverse: evrything in that field becomes default font. But this not always happens. There must be a clue I ignore. 2) Loss of extra font text when the database has gone through a global edit. I mean, the text is not lost but converted into the default font and you have to reselect and change the font, piece by piece. 3) One will understand that with foreign fonts there is no sorting. The sorting is according the OS you use. If there is a way to change that, I ignore it and you are invited to illuminate me. Louis Gabaude EFEO, Chiang Mai >In choosing whether to use ProCite or EndNote, or Reference Manager, I would >pay attention to the following things: > >- what are their respective download abilities. Bear in mind, though, that >ProCite (what about EndNote and Reference Manager) is able to import records >in a variety of formats (tab-delimited texts, comma-delimited texts etc), >which can be churned out by most database programs, and that you can edit >import filters and configuration files to get the exact result you need. I >have no experience with MedLine, which I understand gives problems with >ProCite, so if you need that, check what the problem is all about > >- if you need at any time to work with references in any other language than >English, check thoroughly and carefully what the capabilities of the three >packages are in terms of handling other languages. I understand from one of >the replies for example that EndNote is not able to use different sets of >fonts in one field; this would make it a practically useless programme if >you need to work with non-Roman languages, or with Symbols. Important as >well is to check sorting capabilities if you intend to use non-English >languages; again, if you cannot specify sorting orders, the programme is >useless if you intend to work with non-English languages > >- If you intend to link to the programme while writing so as to insert >automatically formatted references in footnotes, check which word processors >are supported by the programme, and, referring back to my previous point, >what the capabilities of these word processors are in terms of handling >non-English languages, if you need to use them. > > >I use ProCite, because that happened to be the programme I got first >acquainted with, and it is not bad a programme at all, even if the >Mac-version 4.03 , which I use, is not as good as earlier versions were, but >on the whole it fulfills my needs. Its main drawbacks are, to my view: > >- the insufficient flexibility of the Cite While You Write Feature (it is >not possible to define different in-text citation formats for first and >subsequent citations - so, or Ibid, or full citation, or insert one of the >two manually, but I understand that the latest version 5.0 offers this >possibility) > >- the lack of ODBC support to link the programme to other database >programmes > >- it's price, but this goes for Endnote as well, particularly if you >consider how outdated the programme is, and how slow new development takes >place at ISI (if they continue ProCite at all; here I have no idea) > > >Hope this helps, > >if someone wants Mac-specific info, let me know, > > > >-- >Gijs Kessler >International Institute of Social History >c/o Moscow Office >103821, Moscow >ul. B. Dmitrovka 15, komn. 425 >telephone/fax: +7-095-2873469 >e-mail: "gke" >URL: http://www.iisg.nl/research/gke.html Louis Gabaude 124/123 Soi 1 - Suraphon Niwet San Kamphaeng Road CHIANG MAI 50000 THAILANDE Tel. +66 53 24 72 63 Fax: +66 53 85 04 85 e-mail: "gabaudel" Ecole française d'Extrême-Orient: http://www.efeo.fr/

Re: Help Deciding
Author: Phil Stanley    Posted: Wed, 10 Sep 2003 10:57:50 +0100
One's choice of software may be influenced by the maximum number of records that can be accommodated per database. EndNote I understand can deal with just 32k. This is not a lot these days when downloads from other databases can be so easily accomplished. I don't know the maximum for ProCite but I routinely go to 70k records with database with index exceeding 350Mb. ProCite has the very important and useful feature of <Marking> records. This feature I would not be without for both routine and heavy duty editing when one needs to work with a group or selection of records. I have been told that EndNote does not have this feature. Phil Stanley Cambridge, UK -----Original Message----- From: PROCITE The Personal Bibliographic Software Discussion List "mailto:PROCITE" On Behalf Of Louis Gabaude Sent: 10 September 2003 23:45 To: "PROCITE" Subject: Re: Help Deciding I would like to stress the point made by Gijs Kessler: ProCite allows to use several fonts in the same field. This is very practical and useful. I use it routinely with Thai. However, I have found 3 limitations: 1) some instability in the rendering when converted to word: for a reason I ignore but some wizard could find, the text following an extra or foreign font may erratically be converted to this extra font, even if you have retyped some text in the default font. Or perhaps the reverse: evrything in that field becomes default font. But this not always happens. There must be a clue I ignore. 2) Loss of extra font text when the database has gone through a global edit. I mean, the text is not lost but converted into the default font and you have to reselect and change the font, piece by piece. 3) One will understand that with foreign fonts there is no sorting. The sorting is according the OS you use. If there is a way to change that, I ignore it and you are invited to illuminate me. Louis Gabaude EFEO, Chiang Mai >In choosing whether to use ProCite or EndNote, or Reference Manager, I would >pay attention to the following things: > >- what are their respective download abilities. Bear in mind, though, that >ProCite (what about EndNote and Reference Manager) is able to import records >in a variety of formats (tab-delimited texts, comma-delimited texts etc), >which can be churned out by most database programs, and that you can edit >import filters and configuration files to get the exact result you need. I >have no experience with MedLine, which I understand gives problems with >ProCite, so if you need that, check what the problem is all about > >- if you need at any time to work with references in any other language than >English, check thoroughly and carefully what the capabilities of the three >packages are in terms of handling other languages. I understand from one of >the replies for example that EndNote is not able to use different sets of >fonts in one field; this would make it a practically useless programme if >you need to work with non-Roman languages, or with Symbols. Important as >well is to check sorting capabilities if you intend to use non-English >languages; again, if you cannot specify sorting orders, the programme is >useless if you intend to work with non-English languages > >- If you intend to link to the programme while writing so as to insert >automatically formatted references in footnotes, check which word processors >are supported by the programme, and, referring back to my previous point, >what the capabilities of these word processors are in terms of handling >non-English languages, if you need to use them. > > >I use ProCite, because that happened to be the programme I got first >acquainted with, and it is not bad a programme at all, even if the >Mac-version 4.03 , which I use, is not as good as earlier versions were, but >on the whole it fulfills my needs. Its main drawbacks are, to my view: > >- the insufficient flexibility of the Cite While You Write Feature (it is >not possible to define different in-text citation formats for first and >subsequent citations - so, or Ibid, or full citation, or insert one of the >two manually, but I understand that the latest version 5.0 offers this >possibility) > >- the lack of ODBC support to link the programme to other database >programmes > >- it's price, but this goes for Endnote as well, particularly if you >consider how outdated the programme is, and how slow new development takes >place at ISI (if they continue ProCite at all; here I have no idea) > > >Hope this helps, > >if someone wants Mac-specific info, let me know, > > > >-- >Gijs Kessler >International Institute of Social History >c/o Moscow Office >103821, Moscow >ul. B. Dmitrovka 15, komn. 425 >telephone/fax: +7-095-2873469 >e-mail: "gke" >URL: http://www.iisg.nl/research/gke.html Louis Gabaude 124/123 Soi 1 - Suraphon Niwet San Kamphaeng Road CHIANG MAI 50000 THAILANDE Tel. +66 53 24 72 63 Fax: +66 53 85 04 85 e-mail: "gabaudel" Ecole française d'Extrême-Orient: http://www.efeo.fr/

Re: Help Deciding
Author: Copeland, Laurel    Posted: Wed, 10 Sep 2003 07:15:27 -0500
Dear Dale, This is what I find in ProCite Help under "WordPerfect Technical Tidbits." It sounds as though ProCite works with WP. I am using Win ProCite 5.0. I do not have WordPerfect to test this out. -Laurel ProCite modifies your Windows Registry file so WordPerfect can find the appropriate cite while you write files in your ProCite CWYW folder. If you install WordPerfect after installing ProCite, you must reinstall the cite while you write support. ProCite adds two styles to your WordPerfect style list: Citation and RefList. Do not delete or modify these styles! ProCite uses them when inserting records and when generating a reference list. If the ProCite toolbar is not available, go to the View menu, select Toolbar, and select the ProCite toolbar. To toggle between the available toolbars, right-click on the current toolbar and select from the list. Be careful when viewing field codes so you do not corrupt your links. If you select a citation to move or delete, you must include the surrounding codes. Modifying field codes could corrupt links to your ProCite database. For example, the unformatted citation: {Olson, 1990#290} expands with field codes added: Char Style: Citation {Olson<> 1990<>#290} Char Style: Citation Third Party -----Original Message----- From: Dale Miller "mailto:drdaleemiller" Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2003 10:20 PM To: "PROCITE" Subject: Re: Help Deciding Actually, this all may have become moot for me anyway. I didn't realize that at this point none of the programs support WordPerfect 11 (correct me if I am wrong). I was wrestling with the question of EndNote versus Reference Manager---ease of use versus power---when I realized that right now neither one would work for me.

Re: Help Deciding
Author: Copeland, Laurel    Posted: Wed, 10 Sep 2003 07:20:46 -0500
Dale - I put "ProCite WordPerfect" into www.teoma.com and learned of a different program, Biblioscape, that works with WordPerfect. http://www.biblioscape.com/biblioscape.htm The site includes instructions for switching from 11 different programs plus spreadsheets. http://www.biblioscape.com/manual_bsp/If_you_re_switching_from_an.htm HTH, Laurel -----Original Message----- From: Dale Miller "mailto:drdaleemiller" Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2003 10:20 PM To: "PROCITE" Subject: Re: Help Deciding Actually, this all may have become moot for me anyway. I didn't realize that at this point none of the programs support WordPerfect 11 (correct me if I am wrong). I was wrestling with the question of EndNote versus Reference Manager---ease of use versus power---when I realized that right now neither one would work for me.

Re: Help Deciding
Author: Dale Miller    Posted: Wed, 10 Sep 2003 11:57:07 -0500
Laurel, Thanks. I got an e-mail from ISI Researchsoft tech. support today that confirms that Endnote 7 is not compatible with the newest version of WordPerfect, WP 11. They are looking at the issue, but aren't yet ready to announce when the incompatibility will be resolved. I've enquired with Biblioscape tech. support to see about their WP support; thanks for that lead. Dale

Issues and alternatives Re: Help Deciding
Author: Mark Tyler Day    Posted: Wed, 10 Sep 2003 12:47:38 -0500
Dear Fellow Procite users, I hesitate to stick my neck into this debate once again, but I've been following Procite since 1988 when it was still an MS-DOS only program and still owned by its original inventor and have also used and consulted various other programs. The basic problem at this point seems to be that ISI Research Soft division, by buying up the three major packages on the market (Ref. Mangager, Procite, and Endnote) has a near monopoly in terms of market share. For both technical and financial (i.e. market) reasons ISI has been heavily promoting EndNote, which is reputedly easier to use, has much better brand recognition, and is targeted to the main market of young entry level students, i.e. undergraduates. It's also optimized for downloading and citing-while-you-write. ProCite in my mind, for the various reasons continually given on the list such as large size of files and database, multiple databases, ease of customization, ability to produce subject bibliographies and indexes, better (but still not optimal) ability to handle mutliple fonts and scripts, etc. is the much more powerful and much more truly bibliogrpahically oriented program. And for some products where ISI has made deals with vendors (such as their own citation databases, Ovid products, etc. or for vanilla z30.50 searching on free public catalogs (such as LC or our own Indiana University Libraries IUCAT), the export/import functions work very slick. Technically speaking, I think it's true that ProCite's "configuration" files are more difficult to update than EndNote's "filters." This is so primarily because the original concept and design of ProCite's files was done in the early 1980s. Back then it was as purely ASCII text world and downloading was focused on a few vendors (such as Dialog, anyone remember Dialog) and a few standards (such as Dialog's tagged field records, Word Star's comma-delimited records, and the library communities MARC records). Thus, Procite's configuration files were designed as vendor files, with all the individual databases within them expected to conform to a basic set of attributes. Now vendors have become "accumulators" and both databases and searching interfaces and output formats change on what seems like a daily basis! In this environment, EndNote's filters, which are constructed as a single file for each database as implemented by each vendor, are much more adaptable and quickly updated. That said, they too often do not work perfectly because so many options, fields, and specialized bibliographic and subject knowledge is required to truly match origin fields with target fields. However, for the undergraduate who wants to write a term paper or a professor who wants to churn out articles and not mess with his or her software, and for someone who wants to include graphics, EndNote probaly is the most appropriate product out there. When asked directly, ISI representatives continually say that they are *not* abandoning the product, but they continue to lag so far behind on regular updating (we don't really need a whole new version, just regular updating and addition of configuration files, revisions to handle changes in major programs with which Procite interfaces (such as Word, PubMed, etc.), and so forth. Many of us in institutions that support the full ISI suite of RefMgr, EndNote, and Procite can also find work-arounds such as exporting data using EndNote (when Procite just can't be easily adaptated) and then opening the EndNote "library" with Procite, which automatically converts the data to a Procite database. What we really need, however, is more market competition to knock ISI out of its complacency. (Ideally, it might be nice to have a market that more merciful as we used to have in the book market where individual publishers could simply produce a good list of books and earn a decent return, rather than be expected to make high profits for shareholders -- which situation has lead to the consolidation of all types of corporations in communication, whether publishers, mass media, or software companies. Several much less well known specialty producers of bibliographic software still do exist. People unhappy with ISI and Procite may very well want to consider these. You gain high quality specialized features and dedicated companies -- but you do lose often even the level of interfacing with other programs and databases that Procite has. In any case, I wanted to refer people who need to research their options to the latest information that LISTS ALL THE ALTERNATIVES and that provides a AUTHORITATIVE AND EXHAUSTIVE COMPARISON OF THE MAJOR ALTERNATIVES. There are two web sites that do that, which I'm sorry to say I hadn't yet updated on my own "ProCite Users Electronic Discussion List" (I'll do that after posting this. The two sites are: (1) For a comprehensive current list of programs with links, see: Don Cribbs' Personal Bibliography Software: <http://www.lib.uwaterloo.ca/~dhmorton/cribpbs.html> (2) For a comprehensive, comparative review of major programs, including all the ISI family of personal bibliographic managers, see Francesco Dell'Orso's Bibliography formatting software: an evaluation template I've gone ahead and copied the main pages for these two sites below. Hope this helps some of you make what I realize is a hard decision: Mark Day, ProCite List Owner **************************************************************** * Mark T. Day, Librarian for Middle Eastern, * * Islamic, and Central Eurasian Studies * *--------------Indiana University, Main Library----------------* * 1320 E. 10th Street, Bloomington, IN 47405 * * 855-9885(office); 855-8068(FAX) * * E-mail: "daym" * * WWW URL: http://www.indiana.edu/~libsalc/daym/mideast.html * **************************************************************** ================================================================== Don Cribbs' Personal Bibliography Software: <http://www.lib.uwaterloo.ca/~dhmorton/cribpbs.html> Archiva <http://www.legend2000.com/> Bibliographix <http://www.bibliographix.com> formerly Bibliographica & formerly "Book" Biblioscape <http://www.biblioscape.com> Bookends <http://www.sonnysoftware.com/> (Mac) Cardbox <http://www.cardbox.co.uk> Citation <http://www.oberon-res.com/> EndNote Plus <http://www.endnote.com> Library Master <http://www.balboa-software.com> Nota Bene <http://www.notabene.com/> Ibid, Ibidem and several other packages for computing in the humanities (Note. many of the NB packages are integrated - you may need to purchase more than one part) Papyrus <http://www.rsd.com/~rsd/> PowerRef <http://www.cheminnovation.com/powerref.html> for Windows ProCite <http://www.procite.com> Reference Manager <http://www.risinc.com/> ResourceMate <http://www.resourcemate.com/> Scholar's Aid <http://www.scholarsaid.com> Scribe SA <http://www.scribesa.com/> Collection Manager and Reference Builders SquareNote <http://sqn.com/sqn5.html> "Information Manager" that does bibliographies Want something really big? These two tend to emphasize management and searching and (with more programming) have been used to run small and medium sized libraries. Cuadra STAR <http://www.cuadra.com/> InMagic <http://www.inmagic.com/> New Wave! Put everything on someone else's server. Access it wherever you are, someone else looks after backups and upgrades. For an annual fee, of course. RefWorks <http://www.refworks.com> Internet-based bibliography manager more info <http://www.csa3.com/csa/HelpV5/refworks.shtml> WriteNote <http://www.writenote.com/> from ISI Researchsoft ========================================================================== http://www.burioni.it/forum/ors-bfs.htm Bibliography formatting software: an evaluation template by Francesco Dell'Orso TABLE OF CONTENTS Web resources <BFSRES.HTM> 1 Identity card <BFS1.HTM> 2 Installation <BFS2.HTM> 3 General <BFS3.HTM> 4 Structure <BFS4.HTM> 5 Input/Edit <BFS5.HTM> 6 Import <BFS6.HTM> 7 Search <BFS7.HTM> 8 Thesaurus <BFS8.HTM> 9 Output <BFS9.HTM> 10 Formatting language <BFS10.HTM> 11 Sort <BFS11.HTM> 12 Export <BFS12.HTM> 13 Manuscript formatting <BFS13.HTM> 14 Term/Entry list <BFS14.HTM> 15 Documentation <BFS15.HTM> Head-to-head comparison between Library Master® <BFS1.HTM> Windows v. 4.11 ProCite® <BFS1.HTM> Windows v. 5 EndNote® <BFS1.HTM> Windows v. 6; Macintosh v. 6 Reference Manager® <BFS1.HTM> Windows v. 10 Papyrus® <BFS1.HTM> Macintosh v. 8 - and a shorter analysis of Bookends® <BKBFS1.HTM> Macintosh v. 7.2.1 all via an evaluation grid by Francesco Dell'Orso University of Perugia, Italy 7th ed., September, 20, 2002

Re: Issues and alternatives Re: Help Deciding
Author: Gary Oliver    Posted: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 08:21:01 +1000
Hi All Mark Tyler Day has suggested a point that I had overlooked: ISI provide incremental improvements to ProCite Mark, could you suggest this to ISI on our behalf and let us know the response. Many of us would be happy to know they had committed to: - timely filter fixes - font support (the diacritic and related problems) - some feature enhancements eg user definable fields Warm regards/gary -------------------------------------------------------------- Gary Oliver Chief Information Officer Australian Graduate School of Management (Enter via Gate 11, Botany Street, Kensington) UNSW SYDNEY NSW 2052 Australia Tel: +61 2 9931-9207 Fax: +61 2 9931-9349 Email: "gary" Web: http://www.agsm.edu.au The Australian Graduate School of Management is a School of both The University of Sydney & The University of New South Wales. CRICOS Provider Number: 00098G ____________________________________________________

Re: Issues and alternatives Re: Help Deciding
Author: David Chasey    Posted: Fri, 12 Sep 2003 23:36:18 -0400
Subject: Issues and alternatives Re: Help Deciding Dear Fellow Procite users, I hesitate to stick my neck into this debate once again, but I've been following Procite since 1988 when it was still an MS-DOS only program and still owned by its original inventor and have also used and consulted various other programs. The basic problem at this point seems to be that ISI Research Soft division, by buying up the three major packages on the market (Ref. Mangager, Procite, and Endnote) has a near monopoly in terms of market share. For both technical and financial (i.e. market) reasons ISI has been heavily promoting EndNote, which is reputedly easier to use, has much better brand recognition, and is targeted to the main market of young entry level students, i.e. undergraduates. It's also optimized for downloading and citing-while-you-write. ProCite in my mind, for the various reasons continually given on the list such as large size of files and database, multiple databases, ease of customization, ability to produce subject bibliographies and indexes, better (but still not optimal) ability to handle mutliple fonts and scripts, etc. is the much more powerful and much more truly bibliogrpahically oriented program. And for some products where ISI has made deals with vendors (such as their own citation databases, Ovid products, etc. or for vanilla z30.50 searching on free public catalogs (such as LC or our own Indiana University Libraries IUCAT), the export/import functions work very slick. Technically speaking, I think it's true that ProCite's "configuration" files are more difficult to update than EndNote's "filters." This is so primarily because the original concept and design of ProCite's files was done in the early 1980s. Back then it was as purely ASCII text world and downloading was focused on a few vendors (such as Dialog, anyone remember Dialog) and a few standards (such as Dialog's tagged field records, Word Star's comma-delimited records, and the library communities MARC records). Thus, Procite's configuration files were designed as vendor files, with all the individual databases within them expected to conform to a basic set of attributes. Now vendors have become "accumulators" and both databases and searching interfaces and output formats change on what seems like a daily basis! In this environment, EndNote's filters, which are constructed as a single file for each database as implemented by each vendor, are much more adaptable and quickly updated. That said, they too often do not work perfectly because so many options, fields, and specialized bibliographic and subject knowledge is required to truly match origin fields with target fields. However, for the undergraduate who wants to write a term paper or a professor who wants to churn out articles and not mess with his or her software, and for someone who wants to include graphics, EndNote probaly is the most appropriate product out there. When asked directly, ISI representatives continually say that they are *not* abandoning the product, but they continue to lag so far behind on regular updating (we don't really need a whole new version, just regular updating and addition of configuration files, revisions to handle changes in major programs with which Procite interfaces (such as Word, PubMed, etc.), and so forth. Many of us in institutions that support the full ISI suite of RefMgr, EndNote, and Procite can also find work-arounds such as exporting data using EndNote (when Procite just can't be easily adaptated) and then opening the EndNote "library" with Procite, which automatically converts the data to a Procite database. What we really need, however, is more market competition to knock ISI out of its complacency. (Ideally, it might be nice to have a market that more merciful as we used to have in the book market where individual publishers could simply produce a good list of books and earn a decent return, rather than be expected to make high profits for shareholders -- which situation has lead to the consolidation of all types of corporations in communication, whether publishers, mass media, or software companies. Several much less well known specialty producers of bibliographic software still do exist. People unhappy with ISI and Procite may very well want to consider these. You gain high quality specialized features and dedicated companies -- but you do lose often even the level of interfacing with other programs and databases that Procite has. In any case, I wanted to refer people who need to research their options to the latest information that LISTS ALL THE ALTERNATIVES and that provides a AUTHORITATIVE AND EXHAUSTIVE COMPARISON OF THE MAJOR ALTERNATIVES. There are two web sites that do that, which I'm sorry to say I hadn't yet updated on my own "ProCite Users Electronic Discussion List" (I'll do that after posting this. The two sites are: (1) For a comprehensive current list of programs with links, see: Don Cribbs' Personal Bibliography Software: <http://www.lib.uwaterloo.ca/~dhmorton/cribpbs.html> (2) For a comprehensive, comparative review of major programs, including all the ISI family of personal bibliographic managers, see Francesco Dell'Orso's Bibliography formatting software: an evaluation template I've gone ahead and copied the main pages for these two sites below. Hope this helps some of you make what I realize is a hard decision: Mark Day, ProCite List Owner **************************************************************** * Mark T. Day, Librarian for Middle Eastern, * * Islamic, and Central Eurasian Studies * *--------------Indiana University, Main Library----------------* * 1320 E. 10th Street, Bloomington, IN 47405 * * 855-9885(office); 855-8068(FAX) * * E-mail: "daym" * * WWW URL: http://www.indiana.edu/~libsalc/daym/mideast.html * ****************************************************************

Re: Help Deciding
Author: Dale Miller    Posted: Sat, 13 Sep 2003 08:58:51 -0500
Just a quick answer to my own last post, in case this is useful to anyone. Bibllioscape looks like a fine program, but I wasn't satisfied with its current level of integration with WP 11. Whether you can use them together successfully depends on your needs; I couldn't get Biblioscape to format citations placed in footnotes, and that is essential for me. But it looks like Endnote 7 actually does work pretty well with WP 11; ISI Researchsoft is apparently just being cautious when it doesn't claim they're compatible. So it looks like I will go with Endnote, but I do wish you ProCite users luck in your effort to keep ProCite development alive.

Previous by date: Re: Multiple citation entry,  John D Berry
Next by date: Re: Help Deciding, R Gozzoli
Previous thread: Re: [Fwd: RE: ProCite Database on the WWW], Herbert Turner
Next thread: Help Deciding, Dale Miller