{"id":332,"date":"2008-08-19T10:00:51","date_gmt":"2008-08-19T17:00:51","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.spreadingscience.com\/?p=332"},"modified":"2008-08-19T10:03:47","modified_gmt":"2008-08-19T17:03:47","slug":"an-interesting-start","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.spreadingscience.com\/2008\/08\/19\/an-interesting-start\/","title":{"rendered":"An interesting start"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"mandalay\" by <\/em><\/span>mandj98<\/a><\/em><\/strong><\/span>
\nMendeley = Mekentosj Papers + Web 2.0 ?<\/a>:
\n[Via bioCS<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Via Ricardo Vidal<\/a>: Mendeley<\/a> seems to be a Windows (plus Mac\/Linux) equivalent of Mekentosj Papers<\/a> (which is Mac OS X only, and has been described as “iTunes for your papers”). In addition to handling your PDFs, it has an online component that allows sharing your papers and other Web 2.0 features (billing itself as “Last.fm for papers”).<\/p>\n

Here, I’m reviewing the Mac beta version (0.5.6). I am focusing most on the desktop side and compare it to Papers, because I have a working solution in place and I would only switch to Mendeley if the experience is as good as with Papers. (I.e., my main problem is off-line papers management, Web 2.0 features are icing on the cake.)<\/p>\n

By Mac standards, the app is quite ugly. Both Mendeley and Papers allow full-text PDF searches, which is important if you want to avoid tagging\/categorizing all your papers. Papers can show PDFs in the main window, copy the reference of the paper and email papers. Mendeley in principle can also copy the reference, but special characters are transformed to gibberish in this beta version. Papers allows you to match papers against PubMed, Web of Science etc., while Mendeley only offers to auto-extract often incomplete meta-data. This matching feature is extremely useful as you get all the authorative data from the source, and most often Papers can use the DOI in the PDF to immeadiately give you the correct reference. Update<\/strong>: Mendeley also uses DOIs to retrieve the correct metadata, if available. (Thanks, Victor<\/a> for your comment<\/a>.)
\n[More<\/a>]<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Well, this is a beta being compared to a product on the market (and Papers is quite a good application). I would expect some of the rough edges to come off as it progresses. What will be interesting to see is how the Web 2.0 aspects turn out. They could provide a route for useful filtering of information as people’s paper databases build up. By having these accessible, it will be much easier to see which papers are really being read and used. <\/p>\n

The links between literature libraries, online profiles and readership are potentially very interesting. Something to keep an eye on, particularly as the edges are evened out.<\/em>
\n<\/p>\n

Technorati Tags: Science<\/a>, Social media<\/a>, Web 2.0<\/a><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

by mandj98 Mendeley = Mekentosj Papers + Web 2.0 ?: [Via bioCS] Via Ricardo Vidal: Mendeley seems to be a Windows (plus Mac\/Linux) equivalent of Mekentosj Papers (which is Mac OS X only, and has been described as “iTunes for your papers”). In addition to handling your PDFs, it has an online component that allows … Continue reading An interesting start<\/span> →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":5,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"spay_email":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_is_tweetstorm":false},"categories":[7,3,4],"tags":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/pe2yp-5m","jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":599,"url":"https:\/\/www.spreadingscience.com\/2009\/11\/02\/short-answers-to-simple-questions\/","url_meta":{"origin":332,"position":0},"title":"Updated: Short answers to simple questions","date":"November 2, 2009","format":false,"excerpt":"by Nima BadieyNIH Funds a Social Network for Scientists \u2014 Is It Likely to Succeed? [Via The Scholarly Kitchen] The NIH spends $12.2 million funding a social network for scientists. Is this any more likely to succeed than all the other recent failures? [More] Fuller discussion: In order to find\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Knowledge Creation"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":269,"url":"https:\/\/www.spreadingscience.com\/2008\/07\/08\/now-we-have-article-20\/","url_meta":{"origin":332,"position":1},"title":"Now we have article 2.0","date":"July 8, 2008","format":false,"excerpt":"by luisvilla* I will participate in the Elsevier Article 2.0 Contest: [Via Gobbledygook] We have been talking a lot about Web 2.0 approaches for scientific papers. Now Elsevier announced an Article 2.0 Contest: Demonstrate your best ideas for how scientific research articles should be presented on the web and compete\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Open Access"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.spreadingscience.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2008\/07\/ruby0nrails.jpg?resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":272,"url":"https:\/\/www.spreadingscience.com\/2008\/07\/11\/browsing-clouds-not-papers\/","url_meta":{"origin":332,"position":2},"title":"Browsing clouds, not papers","date":"July 11, 2008","format":false,"excerpt":"Commentary: Summarizing papers as word clouds: [Via Buried Treasure] The web provides entirely new avenues for decimating information and for visualizing it. It can be very time consuming to browse throught the literature, even though the most creative research often comes from the intervention of Serendipity (the Wikipedia article lists\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Science"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/larsjuhljensen.files.wordpress.com\/2008\/06\/kuh08nar_small.png?w=350&h=200&crop=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":357,"url":"https:\/\/www.spreadingscience.com\/2008\/09\/03\/blogging-on-research\/","url_meta":{"origin":332,"position":3},"title":"Blogging on research","date":"September 3, 2008","format":false,"excerpt":"by fdecomite More on bloggers and OA: [Via Open Access News] Bora Zivkovic, ResearchBlogging.org, v.2.0, A Blog Around the Clock, August 29, 2008. ... [W]e took a little look [at the new release of ResearchBlogging.org] at the PLoS HQ and noticed that out of 87 pages of 'all results' there\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Science"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i1.wp.com\/www.spreadingscience.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2008\/09\/sand.jpg?resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":190,"url":"https:\/\/www.spreadingscience.com\/2008\/05\/20\/credit-where-credit-is-due\/","url_meta":{"origin":332,"position":4},"title":"Credit where credit is due","date":"May 20, 2008","format":false,"excerpt":"by Shereen M Who needs coauthors?: [Via Survival Blog for Scientists] Young people, in tenure track positions, feel they to have to collect as many authorships as possible. Questions like \u201cWill I be a coauthor?\u201d and demands as \u201cI have to be a coauthor\u201d are part of daily conversations in\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Open Access"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i2.wp.com\/www.spreadingscience.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2008\/05\/oil-drop.jpg?resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":479,"url":"https:\/\/www.spreadingscience.com\/2009\/01\/15\/broken-filters\/","url_meta":{"origin":332,"position":5},"title":"Broken filters?","date":"January 15, 2009","format":false,"excerpt":"by mrpattersonsir Information overload is NOT filture failure: This has been bothering me for a while now, dating back to last year, when I first heard Clay Shirky's very pithy statement that information overload isn't a real problem, the real problem is a failure to build effective filters. It's a\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Open Access"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.spreadingscience.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/332"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.spreadingscience.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.spreadingscience.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.spreadingscience.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/5"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.spreadingscience.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=332"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.spreadingscience.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/332\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.spreadingscience.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=332"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.spreadingscience.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=332"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.spreadingscience.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=332"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}