- Readcube papers sort by publication date manual#
- Readcube papers sort by publication date professional#
Science and Nature work at an even higher level, of course, but I have a general scientific curiosity, so they work well for me. It's true that many of the papers will be on topics that you know little about (or might care for even less), but you'll see some things you wouldn't otherwise see, while also getting quality work that's relevant to your own interests. I would recommend having some of the big, general ones in there, such as JACS and Angewandte Chemie and Nature Chemistry for chemistry. A similar experience that I've never found a way to recapitulate in the digital world was the way that you'd come across other papers while looking up other references in the bound journals, but that one may be gone forever. What I'm trying to do with RSS is to replicate the older experience of flipping through the paper journals as they came in, because I found that I came across interesting things that way that I might not have seen otherwise. There are a lot of sites that will handle feeds for you - I use one called NewsBlur, so you might start there if you're looking to get going. But I've found that RSS is congenial to the way I scan things (it may not work the same for everyone).
I use an RSS reader to try to keep up, although I will freely admit that I have not been as diligent with the general literature during some of this pandemic period. A large-scale problem is what journals to even look at. So here's what I have to offer, and I hope it helps. Which is indeed a problem, on several levels, and has been for a long time now.
Readcube papers sort by publication date professional#
Thank you Vicente for you prompt professional assistance in helping me avoid hundreds of duplications in the library.I've requests from time to time to share some tips about dealing with the scientific literature. I am extremely pleased with the time it saved me, and the high degree of accuracy achieved. The Paperpile app worked most efficiently and seamlessly. I have successfully completed and submitted my article with more than 1200 citations. I am happy to report today (8/9/21) that using only author name (and title) pulls up the correction information and avoided duplications in the library. However, none of them appeared under “items from your library”, only as items found on the web if I input a URL instead of author’s name when using the app for adding citations. Many of the references I am citing in the manuscript have previously been saved to my Paperpile library. Therefore, everytime I input the same URL address for a study that is cited again, Paperpile showed only one selection in the populated results and not the various options you described, and also created a duplication in the library. I think the reason I am getting duplications is because I am pasting a URL address for a study, instead of an author’s name as shown in the sample. I am logged in to only one google account, so there should be no conflicts in that area.
Readcube papers sort by publication date manual#
Otherwise, a paper with 2000 citations will require a lot of manual work to remove duplications. However, that defeats the purpose of using Paperpile, which is to facilitate duplication in numbering. It appears the only workaround is to copy the existing Papepile reference link to use whenever a paper is cited a second/third time, instead of generating a new link. Meaning, each duplicated reference is tied to a specific copy of the same paper in the Paperpile library. I have tested this to be true, as restoring the trashed paper restored the link to a specific reference of the same paper. Deleting the duplicates will cause an error in the citation, for the link will be broken. For example, if XYZ2021 is cited 10 times, there will be 10 copies of this study in the paperpile library, and in the Google Drive Paperpile folder. Regarding duplications, I find that every time a paper is cited using paperpile, a copy is created in the library, causing multiple duplicates.
0 kommentar(er)
