List Archives >  Reference Manager List Archive >  Archive by date >  This Month By Date >  This Month By Topic

bug in citation sequence

Search email archive for  

bug in citation sequence
Author: Tore Nielsen    Posted: Thur, 11 Aug 2005 15:40:00 -0800
Hello everyone, I am a long-time RM user who just joined this list a few weeks ago. I was wondering if someone might be able to help me with a recurrent problem I have. I have RM 11 network version installed at my office/lab and RM 10 at home. I find that as long as I keep my database at home synchronized with the one in my lab (I have only 1 BIG database) that the two versions are entirely compatible when I work on the same paper at the two sites. Or so I thought (maybe they aren't?). I find that more frequently than I would like that my citations in a manuscript are thrown off by one or two places. That is, the order of citations remains the same, but it seems as if one or two of them have mysteriously disappeared and all the others are displaced relative to their place in the manuscript to 'fill in' for the missing one(s). So all of my references at a certain point will be incorrect. This is quite devastating, especially since I usually use in-text numbering format rather than 'author, date' format and so I won't usually notice exactly when it first occurs. In fact, I am not sure exactly when or how it occurs. I can't reproduce it at will. One idea I have is that it occurs when I 'remove' a citation from a set using the 'edit citation' command. Another is that I am copy/pasting and cut/pasting citation fields around in the manuscript when I really shouldn't be (do others do this? It seems to work okay). But I am really not sure. Does this error sound familiar to anyone else? Any ideas on how to fix it? Thanks very much in advance for any thoughts you might have. Tore Nielsen Dream & Nightmare Lab U Montreal __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

RE: bug in citation sequence
Author: Dr Richard Mailman    Posted: Thur, 18 Aug 2005 14:10:00 -0800
Tore: This is a bug RIS knows about, is in all their products, but will not fix until next version, and probably has less to do with your databases and more to do with CWYW. If you look at the list archives, it has been discussed. The problem occurs when using CWYW and adding references with that function. It causes what a molecular biologist would call a frameshift. It never occurs if you highlight the citation you wish to change, and revert that one alone to original text and then add the refs. It caused me to send in a grant late when it corrupted 20 of 25 pp of a grant application. Richard B. Mailman, Ph.D. Professor of Psychiatry, Pharmacology, Neurology, and Medicinal Chemistry CB#7160, 7001C NC Neurosciences Hospital University of North Carolina School of Medicine Chapel Hill NC 27599-7160 USA "richard_mailman" Voice 919.966.2484; FAX 919-966-9604; Mobile 919.260.7976 -----Original Message----- From: "listmaster" "mailto:listmaster" On Behalf Of "Tore.Nielsen[???????????? Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2005 7:40 PM To: "RIS-List" Subject: <RefMan> bug in citation sequence Hello everyone, I am a long-time RM user who just joined this list a few weeks ago. I was wondering if someone might be able to help me with a recurrent problem I have. I have RM 11 network version installed at my office/lab and RM 10 at home. I find that as long as I keep my database at home synchronized with the one in my lab (I have only 1 BIG database) that the two versions are entirely compatible when I work on the same paper at the two sites. Or so I thought (maybe they aren't?). I find that more frequently than I would like that my citations in a manuscript are thrown off by one or two places. That is, the order of citations remains the same, but it seems as if one or two of them have mysteriously disappeared and all the others are displaced relative to their place in the manuscript to 'fill in' for the missing one(s). So all of my references at a certain point will be incorrect. This is quite devastating, especially since I usually use in-text numbering format rather than 'author, date' format and so I won't usually notice exactly when it first occurs. In fact, I am not sure exactly when or how it occurs. I can't reproduce it at will. One idea I have is that it occurs when I 'remove' a citation from a set using the 'edit citation' command. Another is that I am copy/pasting and cut/pasting citation fields around in the manuscript when I really shouldn't be (do others do this? It seems to work okay). But I am really not sure. Does this error sound familiar to anyone else? Any ideas on how to fix it? Thanks very much in advance for any thoughts you might have. Tore Nielsen Dream & Nightmare Lab U Montreal __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

Re: bug in citation sequence
Author: Sarah Cage    Posted: Thur, 18 Aug 2005 14:20:00 -0800
We had a similart problem when we first started using RM11. We never managed to reproduce it consistently, but I think it might be related to some sort of conflict between RM10 and RM11. It did seem to come up in big documents which had been swapped from RM10 to RM11, and edited using cutting and pasting or "edit citation". Since we upgraded all the computers to RM11 it's gone away (as far as I know). The work-around I found was to re-generate the bibliography in RM11 before making any changes when transferring from RM10 to RM11. We then didn't get the problem - but we didn't swap back and forwards between the two versions to check that it was really solved. I realise this isn't a solution, but it might help you to avoid the problem in future! Sarah Cage Senior Scientific Information Specialist NPIS (Birmingham Centre) City Hospital, Birmingham UK e-mail: "s.cage" ----- Original Message ----- From: ""Tore.Nielsen[????????????" <"Tore.Nielsen[???????????? To: "RIS-List" Sent: Friday, August 12, 2005 12:40 AM Subject: <RefMan> bug in citation sequence > > Hello everyone, > I am a long-time RM user who just joined this list a few weeks ago. I > was wondering if someone might be able to help me with a recurrent > problem I have. > I have RM 11 network version installed at my office/lab and RM 10 at > home. I find that as long as I keep my database at home synchronized > with the one in my lab (I have only 1 BIG database) that the two > versions are entirely compatible when I work on the same paper at the > two sites. Or so I thought (maybe they aren't?). > I find that more frequently than I would like that my citations in a > manuscript are thrown off by one or two places. That is, the order of > citations remains the same, but it seems as if one or two of them have > mysteriously disappeared and all the others are displaced relative to > their place in the manuscript to 'fill in' for the missing one(s). So > all of my references at a certain point will be incorrect. This is quite > devastating, especially since I usually use in-text numbering format > rather than 'author, date' format and so I won't usually notice exactly > when it first occurs. In fact, I am not sure exactly when or how it > occurs. I can't reproduce it at will. One idea I have is that it occurs > when I 'remove' a citation from a set using the 'edit citation' command. > Another is that I am copy/pasting and cut/pasting citation fields around > in the manuscript when I really shouldn't be (do others do this? It > seems to work okay). But I am really not sure. > Does this error sound familiar to anyone else? Any ideas on how to fix > it? > Thanks very much in advance for any thoughts you might have. > Tore Nielsen > Dream & Nightmare Lab > U Montreal > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com >

Previous by date: Search window parameter column widths,  Daryl
Next by date: web publisher Ref Man V11,  Natacha
Previous thread: maximum field size, Shirley Ainsworth
Next thread: web publisher Ref Man V11,  Natacha