Save
Saving
  • R
    Ritske Rensma

    Being able to edit the references once they are in manuscripts is 100% necessary, I think. It's elegant that once the reference is imported, you deal with it internally - you fix errors which sometimes you only discover later, etc. Also, wouldn't it make sense that you should be able to add a reference manually, ie the old-fashioned way, namely by just typing in all the data by hand rather than importing it as a .ris file or from papers? Lastly, being able to set the reference type yourself once it's in manuscripts seems sensible too. Importing reference data is never going to be a spotless process - it isn't like that in papers, either. I always end up having to tidy up a reference once it's imported.

    posted in Comments & Feedback read more
  • R
    Ritske Rensma

    Thanks for the quick reply! Here is a file I created to demonstrate this behaviour:

    https://www.dropbox.com/sh/jlw1hvvi055d4s3/AACLV7ZI4c4qEpaB39wQ4NVYa?dl=0

    Manuscripts seems to think in articles only - it doesn't think in books, as there is no way to even add the information for the publisher later. Once a reference is imported, you can't even choose what 'type' of reference it is (journal article, book, online source, etc), which is quite important - all reference managers allow you to assign this metadata to a reference (endnote for example has a really long list with different types, even artworks, etc). This seems like a big omission - not everything people are going to want to cite are going to be articles.

    posted in Comments & Feedback read more
  • R
    Ritske Rensma

    Love the concept of manuscripts. Have been playing around with it a bit, but I notice something that goes wrong when using magic citations from papers. This works well when referencing articles, but when you reference a book, the information about the publisher and the town of publication is 'lost in translation' - it doesn't make it into manuscripts. In the bibliogrpahy, you therefore get books for which the only info that is given are the author and the title of the book. Needless to say, this is not acceptable for most referencing styles (if not all). Is this a bug, or am i doing something wrong?

    posted in Comments & Feedback read more