Cyberspace. A consensual hallucination experienced daily
by billions of legitimate operators.

William Gibson, Neuromancer.

A life spent making mistakes is not only more honorable, but more useful than a life spent doing nothing.

George Bernard Shaw.

François/phnk

A bibliographic workflow using CiteULike and BibDesk

13 juillet 2006 · Technologie

I am currently testing the following CiteULike + BibDesk workflow combination:

  1. CiteULike is a social bookmarking system oriented towards academic publications. When I find an interesting article on PubMed or Ingenta, for example, or when I learn about a good book on Amazon, I click on the CiteULike bookmarklet which automatically fills a full bibliographic notice for the reference and adds it to my library.


    A sample from my CiteULike library. Stars indicate the priority-to-read rating (a tick means the reference has already been read). Books are automatically added with their cover. The usual folksonomy functions (shared keywords, and n others…) are featured.

    CiteULike’s added values to a plain reference list are the shared keywords, the priority-to-read rating and the capacity to attach notes to the reference. One of the most interesting capabilities may be the PDF uploader function, which makes it possible to attach the full article to the reference, directly on the CiteULike server.


    The article on the top of this screenshot has been annotated. The bottom one comes with its PDF file. CiteULike is not limiting file size or total storage capacity at the moment.

  2. Selections of references (by user, keyword, or author) can be watched, or exported to EndNote (RIS), to BibTex (BIB), or even followed through RSS syndication.


    This example selects CiteULike references through two criteria: user (phnk) and keyword (public_health).

    Below, I have exported this selection to the BibTeX format, and will use BibDesk to manage it further. BibDesk is a free BibTeX files manager, with a nice intuitive Mac OS X interface and a lot of interesting features (such as automatic filing and export capabilities to formats like HTML, RTF, Microsoft Word…).

  3. The BibTeX export function is far from perfect but it is reasonably efficient. The following screenshot shows that references were exported thoroughly (abstracts, notably, are present in the BibTeX file) and without any encoding problems (for instance, Aïach was correctly exported).

  4. BibDesk has a batch function that generates smart cite-keys for references. This function will correct one of the few weaknesses of the CiteULike-to-BibTeX export process: the cite-keys are quite lame, since CiteULike has no cite-key guessing capability.

  5. My workflow currently ends at this stage. So far, it is still handicapped by pretty serious bugs, such as the problem with keywords export in CiteULike (an article tagged with political_science and health_policy will be exported with a single, nonsensical political_science health_policy keyword in BibTex). But the main necessities are already there.


    The cite-keys problem is solved, but the keywords problem remains at this stage.

This workflow is close to perfect, only little improvement is needed to make it fully functional. Overall, I feel very confident in the efforts of both the developers of CiteULike and BibDesk to make their tools interact properly. Perhaps the Local-URL autofiling function in BibDesk could be articulated with the PDF upload in CiteULike.

The reverse operation, importing from BibDesk to CiteULike, is extremely simple too:

  1. BibDesk can place any number of references into the clipboard, as BibTeX or minimal BibTeX records:


    BibDesk has many more commands available through right-click and drag-and-drop than simply copying records..

  2. In parallel, CiteULike can either import .bib files, or parse BibTeX code from a text box:

  3. Similarly to what can be achieved with the Flickr uploadr, for instance, the user can batch-assign tags and reading priorities to the references he imports.

This last process seems to be very clean: for example, URLs and BibTeX keys are perfectly imported. Alas, the killer-trick that would automatically upload files to CiteULike using Local-URL data from BibDesk files is not yet implemented, and I do not think this is actually conceivable in any way. Let aside this tiny drawback, the correspondence between CiteULike and BibDesk is truly amazing.

Update, 13 October 2007: recent BibDesk nightlies contain a new Web import tool that automatically scans Web pages for BibTeX references. It seems to work fine with CiteULike, although it ‘stalled’ after my first test.

, , , , ,

Référence : François, A bibliographic workflow using CiteULike and BibDesk, Boîte Noire, 13 juillet 2006.
Accessible en ligne : http://phnk.com/blog/tech/citeulike-and-bibdesk/.

Discussion

5 commentaires :

J’ai le même workflow. Et voici comment je le prolonge :

  1. en exportant mes citations de BibDesk vers LaTeX grâce à un petit script pour BibDesk qui utilise le front-end LyX ;
  2. en exportant mes références vers mon wiki propulsé par UniWakka, qui gère les bibliographies et références au format BibTeX.

Rien à redire, tout coule parfaitement… même si ça pourrait être un peu plus automatisé !

On pourrait aussi ajouter le partage des références via BibDesk, comme il l’autorise…

Enro, 15 juillet 2006

Merci beaucoup pour ce commentaire, qui offre des pistes très intéressantes pour améliorer mon workflow initial.

François, 15 juillet 2006

Hello,

I have also started to use BibDesk+CiteULike together (since using BibDesk for a few years and then finding CiteULike). Here are some thoughts which might help you:

- There are two ways to fix the problem with tags, one is to manually edit each record (double click) and place a comma (,) between each tag, now BibDesk will seperate the tags properly. For example, “public_health inequalities” should be edited in BibDesk so it reads “public_health, inequalities”. This may take a long time if you have a big library, but you only have to do it once, and then you just need to do it for each new record that you add.

If you do not wish to edit every record, then the other option you may wish to explore is to export your CiteULike library as an EndNote (.ris) and not a BibTeX (.bib) file. For some reason the EndNote file correctly places the commas between tags so the tags are correctly seperated in BibDesk. There are some problems however, using the EndNote file means that the abstract does not get exported correctly (it only exported a single word for me!). I have not looked into this further since my initial CiteULike library was small enough so that I could just edit the tags and add the commas.

-Another tip, when you add a new article to CiteULike and you want to quickly update your BibDesk you can open up the record in CiteULike, scroll down to the bottom of the page where there should be a BibTeX code snippet box, select this text and DRAG it onto the main window of BibTeX, this will automatically add the record.

I hope this will be of use :) I will bookmark your site to see if you have any other improvements to this workflow in the future!

zeta101, 18 août 2006

Je viens de l’adopter (après avoir fait la connerie de rédiger 50 pages de mémoire sous word…), et c’est vraiment nickel…

Pour les Mac-users, TexMaker est un super éditeur… vraiment.

Timothée, 9 juin 2007

Hello !

abstracts, notably, are present in the bibtex file : Certaines parenthèses en disent plus que tout le reste :)

Merci pour ton billet ! Toujours un plaisir de te lire.

MBark, 14 février 2008

Laisser un commentaire :