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

collective database

Search email archive for  

collective database
Author: Reginald Deschepper    Posted: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 12:51:35 +0100
Hello, I am a member of a research group and we are making a RM-database of all the full text articles that we have put on a central place so that they are available for all the researchers of our group. Each article has a number so that we can easily find it. Up until now it works fine but I still have some questions. 1. We have put the number of the articles (starting by 1, 2, 3, etc...) in the field 'user definition 1'. Is this the right place? Is it possible to search in the database for a certain number in this field? 2. Each month we have +/- 150 new references. We are sending an e-mail to each reserarcher with the database in attachment. We are thinking to put a cumulative database in a shared folder on a drive of our university. Does anyone has experience with this? any suggestions? (We have a network version of RM) 3. The individual researchers have also their own, already existing databases. Should they add the collective database to their own personal database or rather keep them apart? Several question you see, but I appreciate if someone give me some hints or can tell me where I can find an answer. Kind regards Reginald Deschepper Free University Brussels

Re: collective database
Author: April L Conner    Posted: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 13:28:53 -0500
Only an answer to question 1. Yes, you can search by a number in a user-defined field. We coded our citations to match the goals of our grant and search by those code numbers frequently. >>> "rdeschep" 3/16/2004 6:51:35 AM >>> Hello, I am a member of a research group and we are making a RM-database of all the full text articles that we have put on a central place so that they are available for all the researchers of our group. Each article has a number so that we can easily find it. Up until now it works fine but I still have some questions. 1. We have put the number of the articles (starting by 1, 2, 3, etc...) in the field 'user definition 1'. Is this the right place? Is it possible to search in the database for a certain number in this field? 2. Each month we have +/- 150 new references. We are sending an e-mail to each reserarcher with the database in attachment. We are thinking to put a cumulative database in a shared folder on a drive of our university. Does anyone has experience with this? any suggestions? (We have a network version of RM) 3. The individual researchers have also their own, already existing databases. Should they add the collective database to their own personal database or rather keep them apart? Several question you see, but I appreciate if someone give me some hints or can tell me where I can find an answer. Kind regards Reginald Deschepper Free University Brussels

RE: collective database
Author: Popham, Karyn    Posted: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 12:53:24 -0600
Is there any reason to use user-defined fields for coding references, rather than using keywords? I use keywords for coding what grants and papers references were used for, whose references they "are", etc.--anything I might want to search on. I use User-defined fields for items that I want to be able to move around on the screen but am unlikely to search on, e.g., UDF-1 is "held by" for items for which we have a hard copy (or the library call number for things we borrowed); UDF-2 is retraction and correction information. The advantages I can see to my approach is that (1) users understand how to search on keywords (2) you won't run out of keywords, realistically (the limit is something like 10,000 per reference?) (3) you CAN run out of User-Defined Fields, only having 5, so one must use them judiciously (4) you can use global edit on keywords to correct variant forms that might creep in--and the term manager to spot them to begin with. Or one can set the variants as synonyms. If you use UDF, you don't have either capability. Can people suggest the disadvantages to my approach? The advantages to using UDF for coding? Cheers, Karyn Popham Reference Wrangler Center for Health Promotion and Prevention Research School of Public Health University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston (713) 500-9665 "Linda.K.Popham"

RE: collective database
Author: April L Conner    Posted: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 14:23:09 -0500
UDF gives us the quickest way to sort by that field and was quicker data entry for coding. Like most things, there are numerous ways to do something so it helps to know the options before choosing which one(s) work best for your situation. For example, we just use the pre-defined "Reprint" field to indicate hard copies. >>> "Linda.K.Popham" 3/16/2004 1:53:24 PM >>> Is there any reason to use user-defined fields for coding references, rather than using keywords? I use keywords for coding what grants and papers references were used for, whose references they "are", etc.--anything I might want to search on. I use User-defined fields for items that I want to be able to move around on the screen but am unlikely to search on, e.g., UDF-1 is "held by" for items for which we have a hard copy (or the library call number for things we borrowed); UDF-2 is retraction and correction information. The advantages I can see to my approach is that (1) users understand how to search on keywords (2) you won't run out of keywords, realistically (the limit is something like 10,000 per reference?) (3) you CAN run out of User-Defined Fields, only having 5, so one must use them judiciously (4) you can use global edit on keywords to correct variant forms that might creep in--and the term manager to spot them to begin with. Or one can set the variants as synonyms. If you use UDF, you don't have either capability. Can people suggest the disadvantages to my approach? The advantages to using UDF for coding? Cheers, Karyn Popham Reference Wrangler Center for Health Promotion and Prevention Research School of Public Health University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston (713) 500-9665 "Linda.K.Popham"

RE: collective database
Author: Popham, Karyn    Posted: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 13:58:22 -0600
April Conner notes "UDF gives us the quickest way to sort by that field..." Ah, excellent point! If I ever have something we need to sort on, that would be a good reason to use a UDF for it. "...and was quicker data entry for coding." That part I don't understand. How is it quicker? And "we just use the pre-defined "Reprint" field to indicate hard copies". Of course, so do we. I use UDF-1 to say where that hard copy is--we have 30 faculty with files and two conference room libraries, not to mention the PDFs stored on our central file server! <g> So knowing we have a hard copy (Reprint = in file) doesn't help much without a clue as to WHERE. <g> I understand there are multiple ways to do things--that's why I wanted to know people's reasons for doing it differently. I might want to switch! Cheers, Karyn Popham Reference Wrangler Center for Health Promotion and Prevention Research School of Public Health University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston (713) 500-9665 "Linda.K.Popham"

RE: collective database
Author: April L Conner    Posted: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 15:19:21 -0500
I agree. This is a great tool for finding other methods and short cuts. Plus, people like you have a lot of knowledge and experience that helps those of us who have not been using it as long. Thanks. >>> "Linda.K.Popham" 3/16/2004 2:58:22 PM >>> April Conner notes "UDF gives us the quickest way to sort by that field..." Ah, excellent point! If I ever have something we need to sort on, that would be a good reason to use a UDF for it. "...and was quicker data entry for coding." That part I don't understand. How is it quicker? And "we just use the pre-defined "Reprint" field to indicate hard copies". Of course, so do we. I use UDF-1 to say where that hard copy is--we have 30 faculty with files and two conference room libraries, not to mention the PDFs stored on our central file server! <g> So knowing we have a hard copy (Reprint = in file) doesn't help much without a clue as to WHERE. <g> I understand there are multiple ways to do things--that's why I wanted to know people's reasons for doing it differently. I might want to switch! Cheers, Karyn Popham Reference Wrangler Center for Health Promotion and Prevention Research School of Public Health University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston (713) 500-9665 "Linda.K.Popham"

Previous by date: RE: not converting some references, Kaiser
Next by date: Re: collective database,  April L Conner
Previous thread: RE: combining documents, Kaiser
Next thread: collective database, Reginald Deschepper